MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Ernest Napper, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 by denying Napper’s IFP request because Napper failed to complete two questions on his IFP application concerning his financial capabilities, and the district court was unable to determine whether he was eligible for IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (requiring that IFP application include information on “all assets such prisoner possesses”); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (when a claim of poverty is made under § 1915, it is essential for the application to state the facts as to poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty).

We note, however, that in light of an intervening change in law, Napper may have a viable claim. See Byrd v. Marico- *791 pa County Sheriffs Department, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (a cross-gender strip search conducted in the absence of emergency circumstances is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment).

We deny Napper’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.

AFFIRMED.