No. 06-7209.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: May 24, 2007.
BEFORE: Rogers,[*] Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceedin forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceedIFP on appeal be denied, and that appellant pay the $455 filing and docketing fee to the district court within thirty days of the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant both by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first class mail.
Per Curiam
Page 2
ROGERS, Circuit Judge:
In its November 2006 opinion denying appellant leave to proceed IFP, the district court noted that appellant is not incarcerated, is employed, receives an income, and rents an apartment. These considerations do not, however, preclude a determination that appellant cannot pay the district court’s filing fees and provide himself with the necessities of life.See generally Adkins v. E. I. DuPont deNemours Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The district court also noted in its opinion that “[i]t is unclear how plaintiff provides for his living expenses beyond his rent based on the income he reports, but neither [his] applications nor his motions address these inconsistencies.” Appellant sought to explain these inconsistencies in a motion for reconsideration, however, and it is unclear from the court’s “minute order” denying the motion why the court found appellant’s explanations inadequate.
In light of the foregoing, I would grant appellant’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and remand for further proceedings concerning his motions for leave to proceedIFP in the district court.
Page 1