Clark et al v. Chevvront et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting the Plaintiff's 21 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party and to USCA-8th Circuit as directed)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KENNETH W. CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFRE CHEVVRONT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3075

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (filing no. 13)
and Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (filing no. 21). On
September 6, 2013, the court concluded Plaintiff had shown excusable neglect for
filing an untimely notice of appeal. (Filing No. 20.) However, at that time Plaintiff
had failed to pay appellate filing fee, or submit a motion to proceed IFP. (Id.; See
also Docket Sheet.) Thus, the court gave Plaintiff until October 7, 2013, to either
submit the $455.00 appellate filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, with the required
affidavit. (Id.) In accordance with the court’s September 6, 2013, Memorandum and
Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP on September 17, 2013.
(Filing No. 21.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court finds that Plaintiff is
financially eligible to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (filing no. 21)
is granted.
2.
The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of
this Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2