Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06137/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06137-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

Appellate Case: 92-6137 Document: 010110287347 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 1
jurisdiction. 

The facts relevant to 

undisputed. The district court 

the jurisdictional issue 

entered its final judgment 

are 

on 

February 11, 1992. On March 10, 1992, Mr. Briggs filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court 

denied this application on the same date because Mr. Briggs's 

application revealed he was employed and owned his home. On April 

8, 1992, Mr. Briggs filed a document entitled "Appeal." We will 

assume, without deciding, this document is the functional 

equivalent of a notice of appeal. 

This court asked the parties to address the jurisdictional 

issue. Mr. Briggs did not address the issue. Appellee asserted 

Mr. Briggs's filing was untimely. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) requires a notice of appeal to be 

filed within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment 

appealed. No notice of appeal was filed by Mr. Briggs within the 

thirty-day limit. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to determine 

the merits of the underlying judgment. However, in Mr. Briggs's 

prose document, which he entitled "Appeal," he complains of the 

district court's denial of in forma pauperis status. We therefore 

treat Mr. Briggs's document of April 8 as the functional 

equivalent of an appeal from the district court's order of March 

10 denying permission to proceed in forma pauperis, see Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4), and exercise jurisdiction only as to the merits 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6137 Document: 010110287347 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 2
of that ruling. We therefore define the issue to be decided by 

this court as whether the district court erred in denying Mr. 

Briggs's application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Turning our attention to the record on appeal, we find that 

Mr. Briggs's counsel filed a complaint against the City of 

Oklahoma City as Mr. Briggs's employer, alleging discriminatory 

treatment based upon race and gender. The parties ultimately 

agreed, in writing, to proceed to nonbinding arbitration, which 

was decided in favor of defendant. Mr. Briggs's counsel, acting 

at Mr. Briggs's request, then filed a motion to dismiss. Mr. 

Briggs then filed a demand for trial de novo, without his 

counsel's knowledge, and counsel withdrew. The district court's 

Rule 43(P)(3) required a filing fee of $150 to accompany the trial 

demand. Mr. Briggs filed his first application to proceed in 

forma pauperis wherein he revealed he was employed earning $600 

per month and owned his own home. This application was denied. 

The district court ultimately entered its judgment ordering the 

decision of the arbitrator in favor of the defendant to become the 

final judgment. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that any court of the United 

States "may authorize" the prosecution of any civil suit without 

prepayment of fees by a person who makes an affidavit that he is 

unable to pay such costs or give security therefor. The statutory 

language clearly establishes that the decision to grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis is subject to the exercise of judicial 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6137 Document: 010110287347 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 3
discretion. 

discretion. 

We therefore review this order for an abuse of 

Taking Mr. Briggs's affidavit at face value, as we must, it 

clearly states he owns his own home. A district court does not 

abuse its discretion in ruling that a home owner is able either to 

pay the fee for a jury trial or to give security therefor. 

Refusal to grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not 

offend the requirements of due process where the plaintiff 

originally hired counsel, gives no information concerning a change 

in financial status, is employed at a minimum wage, shows no 

debts, and owns his own home. 

The judgment of the district court denying leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6137 Document: 010110287347 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 4