Dopp v. Martin

Filing 44

ORDER that Petitioner shall supplement his 43 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by providing complete financial information not later than July 19, 2019. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 6/28/19. (kmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RICHARD DOPP,
Petitioner,
v.
TERESA MCCOIN, et al.,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-18-520-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without
Prepayment of Costs or Fees [Doc. No. 43], filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner
seeks authorization to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the Judgment entered May 2,
2019, granting in part and denying in part his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. 1 Upon consideration, the Court finds that Petitioner provides insufficient
information to permit a determination of his Motion.
A court “has discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a civil litigant permission
to proceed IFP.” Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police Dep’t, 24 F. App’x 977, 979
(10th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). To properly exercise that discretion, this
Court must have information regarding Petitioner’s income and expenses. Nothing in this
Motion reveals how Petitioner – who states he has no job, no income or other source of

1

Although Petitioner is subject to filing restrictions under 29 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Tenth
Circuit has held that a habeas action under § 2241 is not a “civil action” within the meaning of that
provision. See Al-Pine v. Richerson, 763 F. App’x 717, 720 (10th Cir. 2019).

support, and no money or assets – meets his ordinary needs of daily living, including
housing, food, medical care, and transportation costs, or the rental fee for the post office
box where he receives his mail. Petitioner states generally in response to Question No. 4
that he receives food stamps, but he does not say how much and gives no further
information about his monthly support during the past 12 months or his expected income
next month. Petitioner has simply written “0” in every space in the form. The nonspecific information Petitioner has provided “does not indicate an inability to pay the
required filing fee.” Raynor v. Wentz, 357 F. App’x 968, 969 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing
Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner shall supplement his Motion by
providing complete financial information with respect to Question No. 4 (including “Gifts”
or “Other sources of money”), and an itemized response to Question No. 9, not later than
July 19, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2019.

2