Court Opinion

ID: 2961366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:42:24.252372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:33:09.219362
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 20, 1992       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 91-2285                                 BENJAMIN J. GUILIANI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              ACCURATE ABATEMENT, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Circuit Judge,                                          _____________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Benjamin J. Guiliani on brief pro se.            ____________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Appellant  appeals from  the district                      __________            court's denial of  in forma pauperis status.   See Roberts v.                                                           ___ _______            United States District  Court, 339 U.S. 844  (1950) (allowing            _____________________________            immediate  appeal  from  the  denial  of  in  forma  pauperis            status).  We affirm.                      Appellant's  in forma  pauperis application  stated            that he  had not  been employed since  October 1989,  that he            received $435.19  in  workman's  compensation  benefits  each            week, that  he provided  100 percent of  the support  for his            wife and three  sons, and that his  assets were limited  to a            1975 automobile, a  $35,000 home with mortgage,1  and $250 in            cash.   In a subsequent filing, appellant  explained that two            of his sons were in college and that their expenses, added to            normal household  expenses, rendered appellant unable  to pay            the filing fee without going into debt.                      A  litigant need not  be destitute  in order  to be            indigent.  Rather, if he can not pay costs  and still provide            himself and his dependents  with the necessities of  life, he            is entitled  to in forma pauperis status.   Adkin v. E. I. Du                                                        _____    ________            pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).  We review a            _____________________            district  court's determination  whether  to  grant in  forma            pauperis status for  abuse of discretion.   Collier v. Tatum,                                                        _______    _____            722  F.2d 653,  656  (11th Cir.  1983)  (abuse of  discretion                                            ____________________            1.  In  his appellate brief, appellant stated the mortgage is            $15,056.64.                                         -2-            standard of review applied); United States v. Lyons, 898 F.2d                                         _____________    _____            210, 216 (1st Cir.) (district court's evaluation of a party's            ability to pay will not be lightly overturned), cert. denied,                                                            ____________            111 S. Ct. 295 (1990).                      The  district court  did not abuse  its discretion.            That  appellant allegedly can not finance both his children's            college education and his  litigation without borrowing money            for the filing fee does not  entitle him to in forma pauperis            status.  He failed adequately  to show that paying the filing            fee would render him unable  to provide his family with basic            necessities --  e.g., food, shelter,  utilities, and  medical                            ____            care.   See Jones v.  Continental Corp., 789 F.2d  1225, 1233                    ___ _____     _________________            (6th Cir. 1986) (district court  did not abuse its discretion            in concluding  that plaintiff  had sufficient  assets to  pay            taxed costs without being rendered destitute).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-