UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1185
RONNIE CLARKE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY; JACK O. LANIER, DrPH,
MHA, FACHE, Current Chief Executive Officer; CHARLES D.
STORY, III, Current Human Resources Director; MICHAEL TUTT,
Current Retention and Recruitment Coordinator; ALL RICHMOND
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS; FRANCES M.
CHRISTIAN, Ph.D., Chairperson, Richmond Behavorial Health
Authority Board Member; WAYNE BLANKS, Vice Chairperson,
Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board Member; TRACEY
CAUSEY, Treasury/Secretary, Richmond Behavorial Health
Authority Board Member; HENRY F. BULIFANT, IV, Richmond
Behavorial Health Authority Board Member; LINDA CARR,
Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board Member; MARGARET
N. CROWE, Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board Member
and Former Chairperson; STEVEN DANISH, Ph.D., Richmond
Behavorial Health Authority Board Member; ANDREW C. EPPS,
III, Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board Member;
SAMUEL LILLARD, Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board
Member; WILLIAM MIMS, Richmond Behavorial Health Authority
Board Member; NAPOLEON PEOPLES, Ph.D., Richmond Behavorial
Health Authority Board Member; ROSE STITH SINGLETON,
Richmond Behavorial Health Authority Board Member,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00743-REP)
Submitted: August 25, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Clarke filed
the motion along with a complaint alleging that Defendant
retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(West 2003 & Supp. 2010). Clarke has also moved to proceed in
formal pauperis on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we
grant Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on this
appeal and vacate and remand the matter to the district court. *
A district court has discretion to grant or deny an
application for in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) (2006); Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363,
364 (4th Cir. 1980). The district court’s discretion is limited
to a determination of the applicant’s poverty, good faith, and
the meritorious character of the claim. Dillard, 626 F.2d at
364 (citing Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46
(1915)). Thus, when a district court determines that a petition
is frivolous, the court may deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134 (4th Cir. 1977);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2006) (requiring a
*
“The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is an appealable order.” Roberts v. U. S. Dist.
Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950).
3
district court to dismiss a complaint if, at any time, it finds
the complaint to be frivolous).
Based on the record before the court, it is unclear to
us that Clarke’s complaint was “fundamentally the same” as the
claim he filed in his previous action against Defendant. To the
contrary, the complaint appears to address conduct that occurred
after, and in retaliation for, the conduct complained of in his
prior action. Moreover, it does not appear beyond doubt that
Clarke’s complaint lacks “an arguable basis in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McLean v. United
States, 566 F.3d 392, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of
frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are so
nutty, delusional, or wholly fanciful as to be simply
unbelievable.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). In so holding, we express no opinion as to the
viability of Clarke’s claims, or whether dismissal for some
other reason under § 1915 would have been inappropriate.
Accordingly, we grant Clarke’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal, vacate the district court’s order
dismissing Clarke’s complaint as frivolous, and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5