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


Menu:
  •                                      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
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: CV-16-113

Citation Numbers: 2016 Ark. 90

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/3/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016