Wayne Merkley v. State of Idaho

Ninth Circuit

Wayne Merkley v. State of Idaho

617 F. App'x 823

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

Docket15-35087

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 617 F. App'x 823 (Wayne Merkley v. State of Idaho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wayne Merkley v. State of Idaho, 617 F. App'x 823 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Idaho ■ state prisoner Wayne Douglas Merkley appeals pro se from the district *824 court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1284 (9th Cir.2015). We reverse and remand.

The district court denied Merkley’s motion to proceed IFP because it concluded that Merkley did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, there was inadequate support in the record to conclude that Merkley had access to sufficient funds to pay the court costs and his basic needs. See id. at 1234 (explaining that a district court abuses its discretion when it “rules on an issue without giving a party an opportunity to explain, or without adequate support on the record”). The record shows that Merkley received approximately $130.00 per month, but does not show how much his monthly expenses were and what items he purchased at the prison’s commissary. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Because the scope of Merkley’s appeal is limited to the district court’s denial of IFP, we do not consider the merits of Merkley’s claims.

All pending requests are denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Idaho ■ state prisoner Wayne Douglas Merkley appeals pro se from the district *824 court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1284 (9th Cir.2015). We reverse and remand.

The district court denied Merkley’s motion to proceed IFP because it concluded that Merkley did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, there was inadequate support in the record to conclude that Merkley had access to sufficient funds to pay the court costs and his basic needs. See id. at 1234 (explaining that a district court abuses its discretion when it “rules on an issue without giving a party an opportunity to explain, or without adequate support on the record”). The record shows that Merkley received approximately $130.00 per month, but does not show how much his monthly expenses were and what items he purchased at the prison’s commissary. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Because the scope of Merkley’s appeal is limited to the district court’s denial of IFP, we do not consider the merits of Merkley’s claims.

All pending requests are denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 F. App'x 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-merkley-v-state-of-idaho-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack