CHARLES HAMM V. VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, No. 17-55605 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES A. HAMM, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-55605 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08381-PSG-AJW v. MEMORANDUM* VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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). (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 17-55605

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.