Case Name: Rodney L. PLANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kristy SKEEM, Mrs.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 656 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 14-36113
Parties: Rodney L. PLANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kristy SKEEM, Mrs.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 290–290

Head Matter:
Rodney L. PLANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kristy SKEEM, Mrs.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-36113
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
August 03, 2016
Rodney L. Plant, Boise, ID, Pro Se.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Rodney L. Plant, a former Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the alleged denial of his right to practice his religion. 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 affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plant's IFP application because Plant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the court's filing fee due to poverty or indigency. 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."); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (a § 1915 affidavit must state facts "with some particularity, definiteness and certainty" as to indigency (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,