From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 27, 1988
865 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1988)

Summary

holding that an order denying pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e) is non-final

Summary of this case from Riddick v. Maurer

Opinion

No. 496, Docket 88-7613.

Submitted December 13, 1988.

Decided December 27, 1988.

Charles W. Sears, Utica, N.Y., pro se.

William R. Hansen, Mary Gronlund, Nims, Howes, Collison Isner, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL and MINER, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Munson, C.J., dated June 23, 1988, 686 F.Supp. 385. Appellant pro se Charles W. Sears contends that the district court erred in denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1982) and in denying appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

The judgment is affirmed.

An interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See, e.g., Tripati v. First National Bank Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987); Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1983). The district court's decision that Sears was not indigent, and therefore that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, was not erroneous. Sears estimates his net income at approximately $20,000. We cannot say that the district court erred in holding that Sears did not establish indigence. Although section 1915 does not require a party to prove destitution, Sears has not demonstrated the poverty found in cases, such as Potnick, that have granted in forma pauperis status.

The district court's decision not to request counsel for Sears, however, is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982) or the Cohen collateral order doctrine, and therefore it normally would not be appealable. See Welch v. Smith, 810 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 246, 98 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987); Miller v. Pleasure, 425 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 880, 91 S.Ct. 123, 27 L.Ed.2d 117 (1970).

In the interest of judicial economy, however, we reach the merits of this issue. See Barhold v. Rodriguez, 863 F.2d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 1988). The same factors that the district court weighed in determining whether to grant Sears in forma pauperis status are relevant to its decision on appointment of counsel. As we must examine the one issue, we see no reason to delay decision on the other, where both questions involve an examination of the financial resources available to the party seeking relief. Consequently, we will decide the question of the right to appointed counsel.

Under section 1915(d), the trial judge has "[b]road discretion ... in deciding whether to appoint counsel." Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Although Chief Judge Munson addressed the in forma pauperis issue without identifying the factors he considered in denying appointment of counsel, it is clear that the statute only allows appointment where a litigant is indigent. See id. (section 1915(d) provides "indigents" with meaningful access to the courts). We review a decision under section 1915(d) for abuse of discretion. See Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 1988); Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60. Chief Judge Munson held that Sears is not indigent in the sense contemplated by section 1915; as this decision was not erroneous, see supra, the decision not to appoint counsel for Sears was not an abuse of discretion.

We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the district court.


Summaries of

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 27, 1988
865 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1988)

holding that an order denying pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e) is non-final

Summary of this case from Riddick v. Maurer

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Williams v. Cent. Kitsap Sch. Dist.

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Tucker v. U.S. Postal Serv.

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Kendal v. Pierce Cnty. Human Servs. Aging & Disability Res.

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from O'Hagan v. Washington

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Smith v. Wolfe

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Roberts v. Tumwater Police Dep't

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Judd v. Nevin

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Ketschau v. Byrne

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Estrada v. Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Wysinger v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Silbaugh v. Wilke

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Ferguson v. Thompson

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Massey v. Thomas

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Massey v. Pierce Count Sheriff's Dep't

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Grewing v. Washington

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Carr v. Kitsap

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Woodland v. Spencer

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Latimer v. Hammond

denying in forma pauperis status where applicant had a net income of approximately $20,000

Summary of this case from Samuelian v. U.S. Treasury

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Bolotaolo v. Div. of Child Support

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Peterson v. Quinault Beach Resort & Casino

denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000

Summary of this case from Woodburn v. Internal Revenue Serv.

denying in forma pauperis status where applicant had a net income of approximately $20,000

Summary of this case from Brittany v. Sacnet

denying in forma pauperis status where applicant had a net income of approximately $20,000

Summary of this case from Alfaro v. United States
Case details for

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CHARLES W. SEARS REAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 1988

Citations

865 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

Green v. Gonzalez

" "[I]t is clear that the statute only allows appointment [of counsel] where a litigant is indigent." Sears,…

Fridman v. the City of New York

SeeBrown v. DeFilippis, 125 F.R.D. 83, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) Nor, of course, does § 1915 empower a court to…