Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11952
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21283-FAM
ADEM ALBRA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR MIAMI DADE COLLEGE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 4, 2020)
Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
In this interlocutory appeal, Adem Albra, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
in his civil action against the Board of Trustees for Miami Dade College (“the
Board”). Reversible error has been shown; we reverse the denial of Albra’s IFP
motion, vacate the dismissal of Albra’s civil action, and remand for further
proceedings.
Together with his civil complaint, Albra filed in the district court a form
application for leave to proceed IFP. On the form, Albra alleged that he had been
unemployed since February 2012. Albra said he had $10 in his bank account,
owned a car worth $800, and owed $3500 in credit card debt. Albra declared
under penalty of perjury that the information on the IFP form was true. Albra also
moved to have the United States Marshals Service serve process on the Board once
his IFP motion was granted. Without explanation, the district court denied Albra’s
IFP motion and denied as moot Albra’s motion for service of process.
Albra moved for reconsideration of his motions. Albra asserted he had no
income and had received no other means of support for over seven years. Albra
contended he was unable to work because of the Board’s conduct that was the
subject of his complaint. Albra also identified two other instances in which he had
2
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 3 of 7
been granted IFP status based on a nearly identical application: once by this Court
in an unrelated appeal in 2019 and once by the district court in a case filed one
month after Albra filed this civil action. Without explanation, the district court
denied Albra’s reconsideration motion.
In May 2019, Albra filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s
denial of IFP. Albra moved the district court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal.
In support of that motion, Albra said he owned a car worth $300 and a home worth
$101,000 on which he owed $86,000. Albra also alleged he received $174 per
month in public assistance and had $1050 in monthly expenses. The district court
denied Albra’s IFP motion with this explanation: “According to Plaintiff’s own
affidavit, he owns a home and a car, and has not even attempted, in more than
twelve years since February 5, 2007, to seek employment, despite no apparent
reason for being unable or unwilling to do so.” This Court later granted Albra
leave to proceed IFP on appeal.*
*
We note that Albra first listed his ownership interest in a house when he applied for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal. In seeking IFP status in the district court and then on appeal, Albra
completed two different standard affidavit forms: one supplied by the district court and one
supplied by this Court. On the district court’s form, Albra made no mention of owning a house.
Then, on this Court’s form -- which provided a separate line prompting applicants to list “Home
(Value)” -- Albra said he owned a house valued at $101,000 on which $86,000 was still owed.
That Albra appears to have some equity in his house, however, has no impact on the outcome of
this appeal. The district court’s denial of IFP at issue here was based upon information Albra
provided on the district court’s form, which listed no house. Nor did the district court indicate
that its ruling was based on a supposed misrepresentation made on the affidavit of indigency.
Moreover, in granting Albra leave to proceed IFP on appeal and concluding that Albra qualified
3
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 4 of 7
In July 2019 -- while this appeal was pending -- the district court sua sponte
ordered Albra to show cause why his civil action should not be dismissed for
failure to serve the summons and complaint on the Board within 90 days. In
response, Albra explained he was unable to afford service of process and that
resolution of this interlocutory appeal about his eligibility for IFP status affected
directly his ability to effect service on the Board. Albra also moved to stay the
district court proceedings pending resolution of this appeal. The district court
denied the motion to stay and dismissed without prejudice Albra’s civil action for
failure to serve the Board in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
We review the denial of a motion for leave to proceed IFP for abuse of
discretion. Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 (11th Cir.
2004). A district court “may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit . . .
without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes
a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay
such fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A district court has “wide discretion” to deny
a litigant leave to proceed IFP but may not act arbitrarily or deny such leave based
on erroneous grounds. Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1306-07.
as indigent, this Court took into consideration Albra’s allegation that he had $7,000 in equity in
the jointly-owned house.
4
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 5 of 7
When considering an IFP motion, “the only determination to be made by the
court is whether the statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.”
Id. at 1307 (alteration omitted). Absent serious misrepresentation, an affidavit of
poverty should be accepted and “need not show that the litigant is ‘absolutely
destitute’ to qualify for indigent status under § 1915.” Id. The affidavit “will be
held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of his poverty, is unable to
pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself
and his dependents.” Id.
When the IFP affidavit demonstrates economic eligibility on its face, “the
court should first docket the case and then proceed to the question of whether the
asserted claim is frivolous.” Id. at 1307 (alteration omitted). The district court
must also provide enough reasoning for its ruling on an IFP motion to permit
meaningful appellate review. Id. at 1307-08 (vacating and remanding the district
court’s unexplained denial of IFP status).
Under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s denial -- without
explanation -- of Albra’s motions for leave to proceed IFP and for reconsideration
of that denial constituted an abuse of discretion. In his affidavit, Albra alleged
(under penalty of perjury) that he had no income, very little money or assets, and
was subject to some debt. In the light of these sworn allegations, Albra’s affidavit
was sufficient on its face to satisfy the poverty requirement of section 1915(a). By
5
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 6 of 7
denying Albra’s IFP motion -- without explanation -- the district court abused its
discretion.
Moreover, even if we look to the language in the district court’s later order
denying Albra’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal as some hint of the
district court’s reason for earlier denying Albra IFP status in the district court --
that reasoning largely falls outside the scope of the pertinent inquiry. At this early
stage, the district court was limited to considering only whether the allegations in
Albra’s affidavit satisfied the poverty requirement: the reasons for Albra’s
unemployment are not pertinent to that inquiry. Accordingly, we vacate the denial
of Albra’s motion for leave to proceed IFP in the district court.
We next address on our own accord the district court’s dismissal of Albra’s
civil action for failure to comply with the rules governing service of process. So
we must set straight a matter of basic jurisdiction. Once Albra filed timely his
notice of appeal, the district court lost jurisdiction to act further in this case, except
in aid of this appeal or on matters collateral to this appeal. See Mahone v. Ray,
326 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003).
The district court dismissed Albra’s civil action for failure to serve the
Board in compliance with Rule 4(m). But if Albra succeeded in demonstrating his
eligibility to proceed IFP -- a matter at issue in this appeal -- Albra would also be
entitled to have service made by a United States Marshal per his request. See 28
6
Case: 19-11952 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 7 of 7
U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and
perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The district court’s
ruling about Albra’s failure to effect proper service of process was neither in aid of
this appeal nor on a matter collateral to this appeal; the district court thus lacked
jurisdiction -- just had no power -- to dismiss Albra’s civil action for failure to
make service.
We reverse the denial of Albra’s motion for leave to proceed IFP in the
district court. We also vacate for lack of jurisdiction the district court’s dismissal
without prejudice of Albra’s civil action. We remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED.
7