*1 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 *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

[*] 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).