Marshall v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. , 2016 Ark. 90 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 90
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-16-113
THERESA MARSHALL
Opinion Delivered: March 3, 2016
APPELLANT
V.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
CO.
APPELLEE
PETITION DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
PER CURIAM
On February 4, 2016, appellant Theresa Marshall, pro se, lodged a partial record with
our clerk and filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in her appeal. She also
submitted an affidavit to support her assertion of indigency. We deny the petition without
prejudice for two reasons.
First, the affidavit of indigency is incomplete. In a response, Marshall indicated that
she was employed. However, in answering the question regarding the amount of her salary
or the wages that she receives per month, she responded only that she earned $12 per hour.
In addition, Marshall acknowledged that she has received money in the form of either
pensions, annuities, or life-insurance payments, but she neglected to answer the question
asking her to describe the source of the money and the amount she has received during the
past twelve months. Without complete answers to these questions, this court is not able to
determine whether she is indigent.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 90
Second, her petition is not complete. Rule 72(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil
Procedure conditions the right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters upon, among
other things, the court’s satisfaction that the alleged facts indicate a colorable cause of action.
Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410, 12 S.W.3d 201 (2000) (per curiam). A colorable cause of
action is a claim that is legitimate and may reasonably be asserted given the facts presented
and the current law or a reasonable and logical extension or modification of it. Brown v.
Sachar, 2013 Ark. 319 (per curiam). Marshall has not demonstrated such a claim here. We
note that, where no fundamental right is involved, filing fees do not violate due process.
Stanley v. Coomer, 2014 Ark. 338, 439 S.W.3d 54 (per curiam); Partin v. Bar of Ark., 320
Ark. 37, 894 S.W.2d 906 (1995).
Based on these deficiencies, we must deny Marshall’s petition without prejudice.
Petition denied without prejudice.
2