Rogers v. United States ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-21-2007
Rogers v. SOAP-Agencia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2601
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Rogers v. SOAP-Agencia" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 394.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/394
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-359 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-2601
________________
KEVIN ROGERS; SOAP-AGENCIA;
NEW COMMUNITY HOMES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION;
ESTATE OF ARDELL ROGERS
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Kevin Rogers,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-01219)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 23, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed September 21, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Kevin Rogers, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and review the District Court’s determination for abuse of discretion. See Jones v.
Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985).
Rogers filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis on
March 13, 2007. He reported that he received $140 from the Newark City Welfare
Department,1 but had no other income or assets. On May 9, 2007, the District Court
denied the motion without explanation. Rogers appealed this order on May 24, 2007.
Evaluating motions to proceed in forma papueris under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is
a two step process. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the
court must examine the litigant’s financial status to determine whether she qualifies for in
forma pauperis status under § 1915(a). Id. If, and only if, the litigant overcomes this
threshold requirement, the court must decide whether the complaint is legally frivolous or
otherwise eligible for sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e). See id.; Sinwell v. Schapp,
536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976). Section 1915 is intended to “provide an entré, not a
barrier, to the indigent seeking relief in the federal court,” Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d
820, 823 (3d Cir.1975), and “one must [not] be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit
of the statute.” Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632, 641 n.7 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations
1
The application does not specify whether he received this sum weekly or monthly.
2
omitted).
At the time Rogers filed his complaint, the District Court filing fee was
$350. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Even assuming that the $140 income referred to in
appellant’s § 1915 application was disbursed weekly, the District Court filing fee was
more than half of his monthly income. We think it is clear that he would have been
unable to pay the filing fee under these circumstances and conclude that the District Court
abused its discretion in denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis.2
Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order and remand the case
for further proceedings.
2
We make no determinations regarding the sufficiency of Rogers’s complaint.