Crownhart v. Walmart

Appellate Case: 21-1302 Document: 010110659322 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 18, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
BRITTANY CROWNHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-1302
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02151-GPG)
WALMART, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
To bring a civil suit in district court, a plaintiff typically must pay filing fees.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. But courts can allow a suit to proceed without prepaid fees if
the plaintiff cannot afford them. See id. § 1915(a)(1). Brittany Crownhart applied to
bring this suit without prepaying fees. Her application declared that, in the preceding
twelve months, she and her spouse had averaged a combined monthly income of
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 21-1302 Document: 010110659322 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 2
$2,119. 1 Her application did not declare any expenses. 2 From this information, the
district court found that Ms. Crownhart could afford to pay the required fees, totaling
$402, and it denied her application to proceed without prepaying them.
Ms. Crownhart appeals the denial of her application, a ruling we review for an abuse
of discretion, Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
Ms. Crownhart represents herself, so we construe her filings liberally. See Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The district court did not abuse its discretion, given the income and lack of
expenses listed in Ms. Crownhart’s application. Ms. Crownhart does not
meaningfully challenge the analysis in the district court’s order. Part of her brief
discusses the merits of her suit, but the merits are separate from whether she could
afford to prepay the filing fees. As to prepaying the fees, Ms. Crownhart argues that
she showed she could not afford to do so because of bills. Her application, however,
did not identify any expenses related to bills—or, for that matter, any expenses at all.
Although Ms. Crownhart did not list any expenses in her application, she
stated in her notice of appeal that she could not pay the required fees “because of
other bills to be paid.” R. at 28 (capitalization standardized). This statement does
1
The district court calculated this figure to be $2,122. Perhaps the
discrepancy between our calculation and the district court’s results from different
interpretations of the handwritten numbers on Ms. Crownhart’s application. Or
perhaps it results from an arithmetic error. Either way, the three-dollar difference
does not affect our analysis or disposition.
2
Ms. Crownhart completed the “average monthly expenses” portion of the
application by drawing lines down the expense columns and writing “N/A.” Suppl.
R. at 5–6.
2
Appellate Case: 21-1302 Document: 010110659322 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 3
not change the outcome of this appeal. The statement came after the court had
already denied Ms. Crownhart’s application, and we generally limit our review “to
the record that was before the district court when it made its decision.” Regan-Touhy
v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the statement offers
no specific information about how much money Ms. Crownhart needed to devote to
bills.
We affirm the district court’s order. We deny Ms. Crownhart’s motion to
proceed on appeal without prepaying costs or fees because she has not presented “a
reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan,
937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
Entered for the Court
Veronica S. Rossman
Circuit Judge
3