Case Name: James REEDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-26
Citations: 668 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 15-16983
Parties: James REEDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and .CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
James REEDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16983
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 26, 2016
James Reedom, Fort Worth, TX, Pro Se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and .CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Reedom appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action for failure to pay the filing fee after the denial of his application to proceed in for-ma pauperis ("IFP"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). We reverse and remand.
The district court denied Reedom's IFP application because it determined that Reedom did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, the filing fee is $400 and Reedom receives less than $500 per month in supplemental security income and has no other assets. See id. ("An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life."). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.