Charles A. Hamm v. Ventura Department of Child Support Services;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES A. HAMM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55605
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08381-PSG-AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-55605
(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.

-- 2 of 2 --