James Reedom v. Social Security Administration;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES REEDOM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16983
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00005
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
James Reedom appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action for failure to pay the filing fee after the denial of his application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
* 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
AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16983
review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234
(9th Cir. 2015). We reverse and remand.
The district court denied Reedom’s IFP application because it determined
that Reedom did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, the filing
fee is $400 and Reedom receives less than $500 per month in supplemental
security income and has no other assets. 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.”). Thus, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --