MEMORANDUM **

James Reedom appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to pay the filing fee after the denial of his application to proceed in for-ma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). We reverse and remand.

The district court denied Reedom’s IFP application because it determined that Reedom did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, the filing fee is $400 and Reedom receives less than $500 per month in supplemental security income and has no other assets. See id. (“An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.