Lovin, Jr. v. McCollum

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 34 Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order denying to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GLEN HUGHIE LOVIN, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, DOC Director,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 14-384-RAW-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
On May 14, 2018, Petitioner submitted a letter to the Court which was construed as a motion
to reconsider the Court’s Order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkts. 34, 35).
Petitioner argues that because the state courts found him indigent, he should not have been required
to pay the filing fee for his appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 He, therefore, requests
a refund of the $505.00 appellate filing fee he paid on December 1, 2017.
As explained in the Court’s Order denying in forma pauperis status (Dkt. 31), Local Civil
Rule 3.3(e) determines whether a habeas petitioner is required to pay a district court or appellate
filing fee:
In forma pauperis status may be denied a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action, or
appeal a judgment in a civil action, if the total balance of the prisoner’s institutional
accounts equals or exceeds the sum of the required filing fee plus $10.00. In the
event in forma pauperis status is denied, payment of the entire filing fee shall be
required to commence the action or appeal.
Local Civil Rule 3.3(e). Because Petitioner’s Statement of Institutional Accounts (Dkt. 30 at 3)
indicated he had a total of $738.96 in his draw and savings accounts, he was not eligible to proceed

1

33).

Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed in Lovin v. Allbaugh, No. 17-7064 (10th Cir. May 1, 2018) (Dkt.

in forma pauperis on appeal.
ACCORDINGLY, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the Court’s Order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. 34) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of May 2018.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2018.

J4h4i0

2