Opinion
Case Number 01-10053-BC.
March 20, 2006
ORDER VACATING ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
On March 14, 2006, the Court issued an order granting in part Daniel Lee Wolfe's request for a certificate of appealability and denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because he had not submitted an affidavit of indigency with his motion. It appears that the filing has caught up with the docket because the Court has since received information regarding the funds available to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court vacates its former order denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and grants the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Because the petitioner paid the $5 filing fee when he filed his petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914, he is not automatically authorized to appeal in forma pauperis under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) and must show that he qualifies for such status.
This Court may authorize the prosecution of any appeal without the prepayment of fees by a prisoner who shows that he is unable to pay such fees. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997). The Court has received information from the petitioner regarding the funds that are available to him and is satisfied that he is unable to pay the fee. The petitioner's request will therefore be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Order denying application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is VACATED.
It is further ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [dkt # 26] is GRANTED.