Tim Kittleson v. State of Washington , 683 F. App'x 639 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIM KITTLESON; et al., 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., No. 16-35391
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 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