Abubakar Hussein Ahmed v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ADOT agent of Stacey K Stanton;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABUBAKAR HUSSEIN AHMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ADOT agent of
Stacey K Stanton; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-17136
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00409-DJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Abubakar Hussein Ahmed appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes for
failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma
* 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 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-17136
pauperis (“IFP”). 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 vacate and remand.
The district court abused its discretion in denying Ahmed’s IFP application
in light of the $400 filing fee and Ahmed’s declaration showing a monthly income
of only $425 and no 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.”). Ahmed’s filings before this court, however,
suggest Ahmed may no longer be indigent. We therefore vacate the district court’s
dismissal and remand with instructions for the district court to permit Ahmed to
either file another IFP application or to pay the filing fee.
We reject as without merit Ahmed’s contentions that he was denied due
process in the district court.
Ahmed’s request for reimbursement of the filing fee on appeal, set forth in
his opening brief, is denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --