Raynor v. Wentz, et al

Filing 920091222

Opinion

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

FILED

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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the d o c t r i n e s of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

-3-