Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., No. 496

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL and MINER; PER CURIAM; This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Munson
• Citation: 865 F.2d 22
• Parties: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES W. SEARS REAL ESTATE, INC., dba Sears Real Estate and Charles W. Sears, Defendants. Appeal of Charles W. SEARS, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 88-7613.
• Docket Number: D,No. 496
• Decision Date: 27 December 1988

Page 22

865 F.2d 22 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES W. SEARS REAL ESTATE, INC., dba Sears Real Estate
and Charles W. Sears, Defendants.
Appeal of Charles W. SEARS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 496, Docket 88-7613. United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit. Submitted Dec. 13, 1988.
Decided Dec. 27, 1988.

Page 23

Charles W. Sears, Utica, N.Y., pro se.

William R. Hansen, Mary Gronlund, Nims, Howes, Collison & Isner, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL and MINER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Munson, C.J., dated June 23, 1988, 686 F.Supp. 385. Appellant pro se Charles W. Sears contends that the district court erred in denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a) (1982) and in denying appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d).

The judgment is affirmed.

An interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See, e.g., Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987); Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243 (2d Cir.1983). The district court's decision that Sears was not indigent, and therefore that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, was not erroneous. Sears estimates his net income at approximately $20,000. We cannot say that the district court erred in holding that Sears did not establish indigence. Although section 1915 does not require a party to prove destitution, Sears has not demonstrated the poverty found in cases, such as Potnick, that have granted in forma pauperis status.

The district court's decision not to request counsel for Sears, however, is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982) or the Cohen collateral order doctrine, and therefore it normally would not be appealable. See Welch v. Smith, 810 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 246, 98 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987); Miller v. Pleasure, 425 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 880, 91 S.Ct. 123, 27 L.Ed.2d 117 (1970).

In the interest of judicial economy, however, we reach the merits of this issue. See Barhold v. Rodriguez, 863 F.2d 233, 237 (2d Cir.1988). The same factors that the district court weighed in determining whether to grant Sears...