Case Name: Charles A. HAMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 703 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 17-55605
Parties: Charles A. HAMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Charles A. HAMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55605
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 21, 2017
Charles A. Hamm, Pro Se
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, 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
Charles A. Hamm appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his-42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hamm's IFP application because Hamm failed to make a sufficient showing of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (IFP statute); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty (citation and internal quotation, omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,