* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### JUN 24 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA SUZANNE TYSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 02-1101

v. (D.C. No. 01-Z-2517) YOUTH VENTURES, L.L.C., REBECCA CRYDERMAN, MARIE FRANCE KORNEGAY, SARAH OWENS, VICKIE EDWARDS, CONSUELA WILLIAMS, KATHLEEN VILLALOVOS, BEVERLEY LOPEZ, ADRIENNE PALAZZOLA, SUSAN FORT, BONNIE McQUARTERS, and EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants - Appellees. (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , LUCERO , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Pro se Plaintiff Barbara Suzanne Tyson is an inmate at th e Dwight, Illinois, Correctional Center. On December 28, 2001, Plainti ff filed in the District of Colorado a complaint against Defendants, as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis . That same day, the court directed the clerk of t he court to commence a civil action, but also ordered that the complaint be dismissed if Plaintiff did not cure a number of designated defic iencies in her pleadings within 30 days. Plaintiff submitted her amended pleadings on January 28, 2002. Her attempt to cure the enumerated deficiencies was nea rly successful, but her submitted copy of her trust fund account statement was not certified by the proper prison official. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (requiring that a prisoner’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action include “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institution al equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the fi ling of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official o f each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined”). Because Plaintiff f ailed to cure all the deficiencies-3-

listed in the December 28 order, the district courtentered an order on February 7, 2002, dismissing, without prejudice, both her compl aint and action. Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The application submitted to this court includes all do cuments required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, including a properly certified copy of Plai ntiff’s trust fund account statement. Because her application is complete, we grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. The substance of Plaintiff’s appeal, however, must fail. She seeks reversal of the district court dismissal of her complaint an d action. But her failure to comply in district court with the requirements of § 1915 justifies dismissal. Plaintiff seems to be confused about the meaning of “institutional equivalent” in the phrase “certified copy of the tr ust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent).” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) . The statute is not referring to the institutional equivalent of a certification butto the institutional equivalent of a trust fund account statement. For example, if the institution keeps track of a prisoner’s funds by means of a document that is notcalled a “trust fund account statement” but has the same function, the prisoner must submit a certified copy of the document that is the institutional equivalent o f a trust fund account statement. Plaintiff’s pleadings, however, suggest that she th inks she has been submitting the “institutional equivalent” of a certified copy. Fo r example, in her Petition for-4-

Leave to Appeal, Plaintiff states that “she did obt ain from prison authority an institutional equivalent copy of the past 6 month o f her trust fund account from Amy Jensen at Dwight Correctional Center . . . .” In the district court, Plaintiff filed an objection to the order of dismissal, stati ng that “the trust fund account statement was printed to this Court and processed b y Amy Jensen, Trust Fund Accountant, at Dwight Correctional Center, and refl ects an accurate statement for the past 6 months and can be verified at [telephone number] by TRUST FUND DEPARTMENT, which is the institutional equivalent.” Finally, in her first attempted in forma pauperis application to this court, Plaintiff asserted that

Plaintiff deposited on January 18, 2002 in the U.S. Mail to prison authority Beatrice Stanley her Prisoner’s Ci vil Rights Complaint and Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit For Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 and att ached an institutional equivalent 6 month trust fund acco unt statement to be copied (13 additional) to satisfy a nd cure the deficiency order designated on December 28, 200 [1] by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Plaintiff has failed to understand that there is no substitute for a certified copy. Whether Plaintiff submits a copy of the trust fund account statement or a copy of the institutional equivalent of a trust fund account statement, either copy must be certified

. In the district court, Plaintiff submitted a copy o f her trust fund account statement. It failed to pass muster under § 1915(a )(2) because it was not certified. The fact that Plaintiff presents a certified copy h ere does not cure her failure in the-5-

district court. Because the district court was pre sented with an incomplete in forma pauperis application, we must affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and action. We wish to make clear to Plaintiff that the district court denied her original complaint and motion for in forma pauperis status without prejudice. This means that she may refile her complaint and mo tion for in forma pauperis status with the district court. If she does so, an d provided she meets all the procedural and jurisdictional requirements, the dis trict court will then be in a position to consider the claim on the merits. We GRANT Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis , and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge