Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05087/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jan Lister
Appellant
Social Security Administration
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

PUBLISH May 25, 2005 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN LISTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY, JO ANNE B. 

BARNHART, Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 04-5087 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-767-EA) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Jan Lister, pro se. 

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 1
Jan Lister appeals from the district court's denial of her motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to file a complaint and have it served. Finding 

no error in the district court's ruling, we AFFIRM. 1 

I 

Although the district court's ruling is not a final order, "denial by a District 

Judge of a motion to proceed informa pauperis is an appealable order'' under the 

Cohen doctrine. Roberts v. United States Dist. Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) 

(citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)); Sears, 

Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 

1988) (noting that "an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order denying 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the [Cohen] doctrine"); Tripati v. First 

Nat'! Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (accord). Ifa truly 

indigent claimant is not granted IFP status, she is barred from proceeding at all in 

district court. Thus, the denial of leave to proceed IFP is "effectively 

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment," Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay. 

437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). because there would be no final judgment from which 

to appeal. See also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 376 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2): 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 2
(1981) ("To be appealable as a final collateral order, the challenged order must 

constitute a complete, formal and, in the trial court, final rejection of a claimed 

right where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review 

whatsoever.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). On the foregoing 

basis, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

II 

Lister filed suit against the Department of the Treasury and the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in November 2003. 

Although her complaint is practically unintelligible, it appears that an 

administrative law judge denied social security benefits to Lister, and she wishes 

to appeal from that order. See R., Doc. I at I & Ex. A. Along with her complaint 

in the federal court, Lister concurrently filed a "Pauper's Affidavit," claiming to 

be disabled and on welfare and unable to pay the costs of filing suit. liL Doc. 2. 

Thus, the district court was obliged to review the affidavit and screen her case 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (e). Lister failed, however, to set forth her 

income, her assets from all sources, and her expenses with sufficient specificity 

for the district court to evaluate her financial status. 

The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned quickly entered an 

order requiring Lister to cure the deficiencies in her filing; the order informed 

Lister that she had to complete a notarized "Motion for Leave to Proceed In 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 3
Forma Pauperis and Supporting Affidavit" and that she also had to fill out 

Marshal forms and provide additional copies of her complaint for service of 

process. R., Doc. 4 at 1-2; see§ 1915(d) (providing for service of process by 

court). Lister was also informed in the order that free forms for the motion, 

affidavit, and Marshal were available from the clerk's office. Instead of filling 

out and filing the proper forms. Lister filed a self-prepared motion to proceed IFP 

and second affidavit that again did not contain the requisite financial information. 

Id. Doc. 5. Because the magistrate judge could not yet determine Lister's 

financial status, he denied the motion and directed her to pay the required filing 

fee. Id. Doc. 6 at 1. Lister filed an untimely objection to the order and did not 

pay the fee. lJL. Doc. 8. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order, 

id. Doc. 9, and this appeal followed. 

III 

We first address the jurisdictional issue of a magistrate judge's authority to 

issue final orders granting or denying IFP status. A magistrate judge's authority 

is narrowly prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636. Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1007 

(10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). In Gee, we noted that "[m]agistrates may properly 

be allowed to hear motions to dismiss in forma pauperis actions.'' but that § 636 

does not allow the magistrate to "make a final ruling on motions to dismiss." Id. 

We held that a court abuses its discretion by dismissing an in forma pauperis 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 4
claim upon a magistrate's recommendations without providing a de novo 

determination as to objections to the magistrate's report. Id. at 1009. 

Our sister circuits have held that magistrate judges have no authority to 

enter an order denying IFP status. See Donaldson v. Ducote, 3 73 F .3d 622, 

623-25 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 

1990) (''[D]enial of [motion to proceed in forma pauperis] is the functional 

equivalent of an involuntary dismissal and is outside the scope of a magistrate's 

authority."'). Because this was a dispositive matter, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 

the magistrate judge should have only issued a report and recommendation for a 

decision by the district court. See Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F .3 d 506, 509 

(6th Cir. 1993) (noting that, although "[a] magistrate may be assigned such 

additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the 

United States,'" rulings made "under [under§ 636(b)(3)] are not subject to final 

determination by a magistrate judge"); cf. Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council 

v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989) ("'[W]e have 

consistently recognized that [a] magistrate exercising 'additional duties' 

jurisdiction remains constantly subject to the inherent supervisory power of the 

district judge and the judge retains the ultimate responsibility for decision making 

in every instance.''). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 5
On our review of the record, we elect not to reverse in this case because the 

district court specifically held that Lister's objections to the magistrate judge's 

order were "devoid of merit.'' R., Doc. 9, indicating that it undertook the proper 

de novo review of the magistrate judge's order and issued the final order. We 

therefore proceed to the merits of the appeal. 

IV 

Under § 191 S(a), a district court '·may authorize the commencement ... of 

any suit [or] action ... without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person \vho submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such 

prisoner possesses, that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 

therefor." Section 1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not 

just to prisoners. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.l 

(11th Cir. 2004) (noting that, "[d]espite the statute's use of the phrase 'prisoner 

possesses.' the affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to 

proceed IFP"); Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) (accord); Flovd 

v. United States Postal Serv .. 105 F.3d 274, 275 (6th Cir. 1997) (accord). 

"Notvvithstanding any filing fee,'· the court must "dismiss the case at any time if 

the court determines that ... the allegation of poverty is untrue" or that "'the 

action ... is frivolous or malicious [ or] fails to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted;'' or makes a claim for monetary relief from an immune party. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 6
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, in order to succeed on a motion to proceed IFP, the 

movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees, as well as 

the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in 

support of the issues raised in the action. Cf. DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 93 7 F .2d 

502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (addressing IFP status requirements on appeal). 

Consistent with the language of§ 1915(a)(l) that gives a district court 

discretion to grant permission to proceed IFP, we review the district court's 

denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion. See Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1306 

("We review a district court's denial of a motion for leave to proceed IFP under 

§ 1915 for abuse of discretion."); Minetti v. Port of Seattle. 152 F .3d 1113, 1115 

(9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (accord); cf. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 

(1992) (holding that "[b ]ecause the frivolousness determination is a discretionary 

one, ... a§ 1915(d) dismissal is properly reviewed for an abuse of that discretion 

.. .''); Treffv. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191,197 (10th Cir. 1996) (reviewing district 

court's decision to revoke IFP status for abuse of discretion). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

IFP status after Lister, having been specifically instructed on how to establish 

indigent status, failed to fill out the proper forms or to otherwise provide the 

district court with the requisite information. Cf. Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1306-07 

(noting that "a trial court has wide discretion in denying an application to proceed 

-7-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 7
IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 .... However, in denying such applications a court 

must not act arbitrarily. Nor may it deny the application on erroneous grounds." 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

We further conclude that Lister is not entitled to IFP status on appeal, as 

she has similarly failed to provide this court with sufficient information from 

which the court can ascertain her financial status. See Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(l )(A) (requiring appellant to "show[] in the detail prescribed by Form 42 of 

the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay"); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) 

(providing that "[a] party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of the notice 

prescribed in Rule 24(a)( 4 ). That motion must include a copy of the affidavit 

filed in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for its 

action. If no affidavit was filed in the district court, the party must include the 

affidavit prescribed by Rule 24(a)( I).''). A bald assertion that an applicant is not 

employed and "never received money because the United States never paid 

2 Form 4 provides for information regarding the IFP movant's income 

sources, monies on hand and in various accounts, assets, dependents, debts owed 

the movant, expenses of the movant, expected changes to income or expenses, 

assets or liabilities, costs incurred in conjunction with the case, any other relevant 

financial information, and contact information for the movant, including the 

movant's age, education, and Social Security number. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 8
money," Aplt. Financial Declaration at 2, is insufficient. Lister's motion to 

proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 9
Appellate Case: 04-5087 Document: 010110642456 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 10