What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the type of district court decision or judgment appealed from (i.e., the nature of the decision below in the district court).

Opinion:
Sylvester LOCKHART, Jr., Appellant, v. Gabriel D’URSO, Deputy Court Administrator, Quarter Sessions Court, Philadelphia County, Michael J. Rotko, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Louis J. Amarando, Clerk of Quarter Sessions Courts, Philadelphia County, Pa., Charles A. Hoenstine, Prothonotary of Superior Court, of Pennsylvania, and George W. Dunn, Deputy Prothonotary of Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
No. 17389.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs Feb. 6, 1969.
Decided March 11, 1969.
Sylvester Lockhart, Jr., pro se.
Robert Cox, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for Michael Rotko.
Stanley Asher Winikoff, Deputy Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, Pa., for Hoenstine and Dunn (William C. Sennett, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., on the brief).
Murray C. Goldman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Louis J. Amarando.
Before KALODNER, GANEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff below appeals from an order of the district court denying him the right to prosecute his civil rights action in forma pauperis.
The district court denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the action was “plainly without merit”. However, when plaintiff appealed such denial the district court granted him leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis, stating that it was doing so because it could not say that his claim was entirely frivolous. This latter evaluation of the complaint by the district court, without more, requires a reversal of the denial of plaintiff’s right to prosecute his civil rights action in the district court in for-ma pauperis. While there may be ex-1 treme circumstances where such a right I should be denied for plain lack of merit, I we think that, particularly in pro sel cases, the right to proceed in forma pau-j peris should generally be granted where the required affidavit of poverty is filed. This approach minimizes, to some extern, disparity in treatment based on economic circumstances. An attack on the truth of such affidavit or the sufficiency of the complaint should be left for appropriate disposition after service has been made on the defendants. Compare Jordan v. County of Montgomery, Pa. et al., 404 F.2d 747 (3rd Cir. 1969).
The order of the district court of May 7, 1968, in district court civil action No. 68-659 will therefore be reversed and the matter remanded for the entry of an order granting the plaintiff leave to prosecute that action in forma pauperis but without prejudice to the right of defendants, after service, to attack either the truthfulness of the allegations of plaintiff’s affidavit or the sufficiency of his complaint.
KALODNER, Circuit Judge, joins in the result.

Question: What is the type of district court decision or judgment appealed from (i.e., the nature of the decision below in the district court)?

Choices:
Trial (either jury or bench trial)
Injunction or denial of injunction or stay of injunction
Summary judgment or denial of summary judgment
Guilty plea or denial of motion to withdraw plea
Dismissal (include dismissal of petition for habeas corpus)
Appeals of post judgment orders (e.g., attorneys' fees, costs, damages, JNOV - judgment nothwithstanding the verdict)
Appeal of post settlement orders
Not a final judgment: interlocutory appeal
Not a final judgment: mandamus
Other (e.g., pre-trial orders, rulings on motions, directed verdicts) or could not determine nature of final judgment
Does not fit any of the above categories, but opinion mentions a "trial judge"
Not applicable (e.g., decision below was by a federal administrative agency, tax court)

Answer: 9