KELSEY D. BARTLETT, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. JOSEPH DUTY ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis states only in general terms the nature of the litigation and does not state the alleged error or errors on the part of the District Judge, about which he complains. The affidavit fails to show what merit, if any, there is in his appeal. Morris v. Igoe, 7 Cir., 209 F. 2d 108; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 191 F. 2d 812, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 954, 72 S.Ct. 1048, 96 L.Ed. 1354.
The affidavit is insufficient to support the application to proceed in forma pauperis, Kenney v. Fox, 6 Cir., 232 F. 2d 288, certiorari denied Kenney v. Killian, 352 U.S. 855, 77 S.Ct. 84, 1 L.Ed.2d 66; Cuiksa v. City of Mansfield, 6 Cir., 250 F. 2d 700; Loum v. Underwood, 6 Cir., 262 F. 2d 866; Hullom v. Burrows, 6 Cir., 266 F. 2d 547.
The motion to proceed in forma pau-peris is denied without prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kenney v. Honorable Raymond W. FOX, 232 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1956)
- Cuiksa v. The City OF Mansfield, 250 F.2d 700 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Loum v. Honorable Mell G. Underwood, 262 F.2d 866 (6th Cir. 1959)
- Stapleton v. Teets, 352 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1956)
- Spears v. Shell Oil Co., 352 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1956)
- Morris v. Igoe, 209 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1953)
- Hullom v. Burrows, 266 F.2d 547 (6th Cir. 1959)
- Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 191 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Collins v. Claudy, 343 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1952)
- Rutledge v. Hudspeth, 343 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1952)