* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 12 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILL MAX OVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Carlos Sanchez, in his official capacity as revenue agent, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-2289 (D.C. No. CIV-99-585) (D. New Mexico)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOURand McKAY , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge.
On May 25, 1999, Mr. Bill Max Overton filed a compl aint in district court seeking damages from Mr. Carlos Sanchez, an agent o f the Internal Revenue-2-

Service for allegedly improper actions taken by Mr. Sanchez, in his official capacity as an IRS revenue officer, to collect taxe s owed by Mr. Overton. The district court granted Mr. Sanchez’s motion to dism iss. On August 9, 2000, Mr. Overton filed a notice of appeal from the order of dismissal. That appeal was first dismissed, then on motion for rehearing, rein stated. See Order of March 28, 2001. By Order of April 17, 2001, this court allow ed briefing to proceed, overlooking the fact that Mr. Overton had neither p aid a filing fee nor filed an application seeking to proceed without payment of the fee. Proceedings in the federal courts are not without c osts. In the event a party is unable to afford the fees assessed for various a ctions in the courts, however, that party may file a motion to proceed in forma pa uperis. F ED .R.A PP .P. 24(a)(5);
10 TH C IR .R. 3.3(B)(3). Attached to such a motion must be an af fidavit that shows in detail the party’s inability to pay or to give s ecurity for fees and costs, claims an entitlement to redress, and states the issues th at the party intends to present on appeal. F ED .R.A PP .P. 24(a)(1), (5). When Mr. Overton filed his noti ce of appeal, he failed to pay the prescribed fee. The Clerk of Court informed him of such in a letter dated September 20, 2000. Following reinstatement of the case, the Clerk of Court again informed Mr. Overton in a July 19, 2 001 letter of his duty to either pay filing and docket fees or apply for leave to pr oceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. The Clerk provided Mr. Overtonwith a copy of the standard-3-

form in the July 19 letter. Id. See F ED .R.A PP .P. 24(a)(5). In response, Mr. Overton referred the Clerk to a mo tion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed with the court on O ctober 3, 2000. In that motion, Mr. Overton contended that because he had b een allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in a case in the Northern District o f California, he should be allowed to so proceed in this case. He is incorrec t. In forma pauperis status must be established in each case, a fact Mr. Overton sho uld be well aware of considering that he has brought dozens of actions i n the federal courts. People’s financial situations change, and the in forma paupe ris motion and affidavits are intended to garner such facts at the time the motio n is made. In short, Mr. Overton never filed the required affi davit and thus failed to comply with federal and circuit rules. Pursuant to 10th Circuit Rule 3.3(B), therefore, the captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge