Williams v. Jalijali

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE E. WILLIAMS, No. 24-183 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00605-KJM-JDP Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JEHOSHUA JALIJALI, Corrections Officer; D. LACROIX, Corrections Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Former California prisoner Lance E. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking Williams’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). We reverse and remand.

The district court revoked Williams’s IFP status on the ground that Williams failed to report $505 existing in his inmate trust account on his IFP application.

However, because the district court determined that Williams’s inaccurate reporting of his assets was not made in bad faith, the court erred in revoking Williams’s IFP status as a sanction. See id. at 1234 n.8 (explaining that to issue a sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), “a showing of bad faith is required, not merely inaccuracy”).

Williams’s requests for judicial notice set forth in his opening brief are denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 24-183