Case ID: f-appx_683/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tim KITTLESON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Irene Jane Holmes; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Washington; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35390, No. 16-35391
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    Tim Kittleson, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tim Kittleson and Irene Jane Holmes appeal pro se from the district court’s orders denying their applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in their respective 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state dependency proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motions to proceed IFP because Kittleson and Holmes failed to allege facts in their proposed amended complaints sufficient to state a claim. See id. at 616-17 (district court may deny leave to proceed IFP “at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit”). Moreover, the district court provided plaintiffs notice of the deficiencies in their complaints and an opportunity to cure them, but both Kittleson and Holmes failed to cure those deficiencies.

Given the procedural posture of these cases, we reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court improperly denied them an opportunity to present evidence.

Appeal No. 16-35390: AFFIRMED.

Appeal No. 16-35391: AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.