Raynor v. Wentz, et al
U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS T E N T H CIRCUIT
U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit
D e c e m b e r 22, 2009
E l i s a b e t h A. Shumaker C l e r k of Court
L I N D A RAYNOR, PlaintiffAppellant, v. B I L L WENTZ; CHERYL D I C K E N S H E E T S ; DANE BAYERS; D O N DRIVE; ELIZABETH H U T C H I N S O N ; ELMIRA KING; H E A T H E R ROSE; LANE; MARION H I L L S M A N , Judge; SAMUEL G. W I L S O N , Judge; JOHN E. L I C H T E N S T E I N ; LICHTENSTEIN F I S H W I C K & JOHNSON; KATHY T O D D ; KIM V.H. GUTTERMAN; L O I S WENGER; MIDKIFF MUNCIE & ROSS; NADIA WEBB; NEIL S O N E N K L A R ; ROBERT GOULD; W A R R E N PICCIOLO, DefendantsAppellees. No. 09-7079 ( D . C . No. 09CV00053RAW) ( E . D . Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
A f t e r examining Plaintiff's brief and the appellate record, this panel has
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the d o c t r i n e s of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, h o w e v e r , for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th C i r . R. 32.1.
d e t e r mi n e d unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the d e t e r mi n a t i o n of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I n this case Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, brought a civil suit for conspiracy a g a i n s t various persons involved with the determination of her parental rights. As p a r t of the suit Plaintiff submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In its f i r s t order considering the motion, the district court correctly noted it "has d i s c r e t i o n in deciding whether or not to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed I F P . " Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police Dept., 24 F. App'x 977, 979 (10th C i r . 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). The court then noted that the IFP motion c o n t a i n e d almost no information that would allow it to properly review Plaintiff's e x p e n s e s and income; the court then ordered Plaintiff to submit several types of f i n a n c i a l documents to supplement her motion by March 4, 2009. On March 9, 2 0 0 9 , following Plaintiff's failure to provide any of the ordered documentation, t h e district court entered an order denying IFP status and requiring Plaintiff to pay t h e filing fee within twenty days. Finally, on April 8, 2009, the district court d i s mi s s e d the case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff a p p e a l s the district court's denial of IFP status, which we review for abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). A f t e r careful review of Plaintiff's filings, the district court's orders, and the r e c o r d on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in -2-
d e n y i n g IFP status and dismissing the complaint. For substantially the same r e a s o n s set forth in the district court's orders, we AFFIRM. Additionally, P l a i n t i f f has asked to proceed IFP on appeal. "[I]n order to succeed on a motion to p r o c e e d IFP, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing f e e s , as well as the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and f a c t s . . . ." Id. We agree with the district court that the documentation Plaintiff h a s provided does not indicate an inability to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, we DENY Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. E n t e r e d for the Court
M o n r o e G. McKay C i r c u i t Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?