Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-20
Citations: 683 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 16-35390, No. 16-35391
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.