IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20505
Conference Calendar
JULES L. WALTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROWN AND ROOT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 96-MC-202
- - - - - - - - - -
February 20, 1997
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jules J. Walter seeks in forma pauperis (IFP) status in the appeal
of the denial of his motion to proceed IFP in his employment
discrimination suit. To proceed IFP on appeal, Walter must show that
he is a pauper and must raise a nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polley,
689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). "The inquiry is limited to whether
the appeal involves `legal points arguable on their merits (and
therefore not frivolous).'" Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983).
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20505
- 2 -
An order denying an application to proceed IFP is
immediately appealable and is properly before this court. See
Flowers v. Turbine Support Division, 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th
Cir. 1975). The denial of IFP status is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 1243-44. Whether a party may proceed IFP in
the district court is based solely upon economic criteria.
Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976). Poverty
sufficient to qualify does not require absolute destitution.
Adkins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948). The central question is whether the movant can afford
the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of the
necessities of life. Id. at 339-40.
Walter’s district-court application to proceed IFP indicates
that he could afford the filing fee without undue hardship or
deprivation of the necessities of life. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Walter’s motion to proceed IFP. As such, Walter fails to raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal. His motion to proceed IFP in this
court is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Walter’s motion for leave to file his brief in its present form
is also DENIED.