MEMORANDUM **

Kalif Smyer, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pau-peris (“IFP”) in his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging negligence. 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 reverse and remand.

The district court denied Smyer’s motion to proceed IFP because it concluded that Smyer’s action failed on the merits. However, it miseharacterized Smyer’s claim as one for deliberate indifference, when the action was one for negligence under the FTCA, and the United States is not immune from suit. See United States v. Muniz, 874 U.S. 150, 153, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963) (a federal prisoner may maintain a claim for damages against the United States under the FTCA for injuries sustained as a result of fault on the part of government employees).

The district court also indicated in its order denying IFP that Smyer had made an inadequate showing of indigency and had not obtained certification of his prison account balance from an authorized officer. On remand, the district court should allow Smyer to supplement his showing of indi-gency and, if applicable, to obtain any necessary certification from prison officials.

REVERSED and REMANDED.