Jasper Crook v. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department; Victorville Police Department; T. Bechtol

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASPER CROOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
VICTORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
T. BECHTOL,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55255
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00008-JVS-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jasper Crook appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Crook’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55255
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP.
Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crook’s IFP
application because Crook failed to make a sufficient showing of indigency. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (explaining that a person seeking IFP status must “submit[]
an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and]
that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor”); 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
omitted)).
We reject as meritless Crook’s contention that the requirement to seek IFP
status or otherwise pay a filing fee is unconstitutional.
In light of this disposition, we do not consider Crook’s contentions about the
underlying merits of his action.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --