TIM KITTLESON V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 16-35390 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIM KITTLESON; et al., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35390 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05178-BHS v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. IRENE JANE HOLMES; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 16-35391 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05177-BHS v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Tim Kittleson and Irene Jane Holmes appeal pro se from the district court’s orders denying their applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in their respective 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state dependency proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motions to proceed IFP because Kittleson and Holmes failed to allege facts in their proposed amended complaints sufficient to state a claim. See id. at 616-17 (district court may deny leave to proceed IFP “at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit”). Moreover, the district court provided plaintiffs notice of the deficiencies in their complaints and an opportunity to cure them, but both Kittleson and Holmes failed to cure those deficiencies. Given the procedural posture of these cases, we reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court improperly denied them an opportunity 2 16-35390 to present evidence. Appeal No. 16-35390: AFFIRMED. Appeal No. 16-35391: AFFIRMED. 3 16-35390
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.
