Williams v. Cherokee Nation Entertainment, L.L.C.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT November 1, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JAMES H. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 11-5107
(D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00360-GKF-TLW)
CHEROKEE NATION (N.D. Okla.)
ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C.,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
James Williams appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to file a complaint and have it served. Finding no error
in the district court's ruling, we AFFIRM. Mr. Williams also moves this court for leave
*After examining Appellant=s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed.
R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
to proceed IFP on appeal. Based upon the updated affidavit and financial declaration Mr.
Williams has provided to this court on appeal, we GRANT this motion.
“Although the district court's ruling is not a final order, denial by a District Judge
of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order under the Cohen
doctrine.” Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1310 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal
citations omitted). “Consistent with the language of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a)(1) that gives a
district court discretion to grant permission to proceed IFP, we review the district court's
denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 1312 (citing Martinez v. Kristi
Cleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004)).
In June 2011, Mr. Williams filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma against his former employer, Cherokee Nation
Entertainment, LLC, alleging he was terminated in violation of the Family Medical Leave
Act of 1993. Mr. Williams petitioned the district court for leave to proceed IFP and
provided an affidavit alleging he was unemployed and disabled, and thus unable to pay
the cost to file his suit. This affidavit, filed June 29, 2011 (“June 29 affidavit”), listed
Mr. Williams’s assets as including $25.00 in total cash and savings and a vehicle worth
$1,000; his total debt included $863.24 for medical bills.1 Additionally, Mr. Williams
reported average monthly income from unemployment benefits and education assistance
totaling $2,200, and monthly expenses totaling $300. Based on the information in the
1
Mr. Williams reported his debt in his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, filed June 9, 2011.
-2-
June 29 affidavit, the district court determined that Mr. Williams was able to pay court
fees and costs and therefore denied the petition, without prejudice, on June 30, 2011. This
appeal timely followed.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) grants a district court authority to “authorize the
commencement ... of any suit [or] action ... without prepayment of fees or security
therefor,” when the individual bringing the petition provides an affidavit and statement
showing that he or she is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” To bring a
successful petition, Mr. Williams “must show a financial inability to pay the required
filing fees, as well as the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts in support of the issues raised in the [underlying] action.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
The June 29 affidavit reflects Mr. Williams’s average monthly income as
exceeding his monthly expenses by nearly $1,900. This amount provided sufficient
grounds for the court to conclude that Mr. Williams had the financial means to pay court
fees and costs. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Mr. Williams’s IFP petition. We note that the district court’s denial was without
prejudice, allowing Mr. Williams leave to re-file his IFP petition if his financial
circumstances should change from those reported in the June 29 affidavit. The judgment
of the district court in denying Mr. Williams’s IFP petition is thus AFFIRMED.
Turning to Mr. Williams’s motion to this court for IFP status on appeal, we look to
the affidavit and financial declaration Mr. Williams filed with this appeal. This more
recent affidavit, filed October 6, 2011 (“October 6 affidavit”), indicates that Mr. Williams
-3-
presently has no income from any source, including unemployment benefits or education
assistance. Mr. Williams states he is living with relatives at no cost, and this assistance is
his only means of subsistence. Based upon the information in the October 6 affidavit, we
GRANT Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal.
In sum, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mr. Williams’s motion to
proceed IFP, and we GRANT Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-