Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00684-*** Document 40 Filed 05/23/2007 Paget of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re; ) Chapter 13
I
PHILLIP A. DYE, ) Bank. N0. 05-11619(JKF) ,_. L
I Li? .II. T
Debtor. ) .··I
I M [JT
PHILLIP A. DYE and REBECCA J. ) §t15<;"Y .-
DYE. I no if ii.
Appellants, ) F; ` I
I
v. ) Civ. Action No. 05-684-***
I
TRUSTEE MICHAEL B. JOSEPH, )
I
Appellee. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Appellant, Phillip A. Dye ("appel|ant") appealed a decision ofthe Bankruptcy
Court to the District Court, and at the same time filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.I. 1, 3.) The initial application to proceed in forma pauperis dated
September 15, 2005, indicated appellant had an annual income of $35,640.00. (D.I. 1.)
The application to proceed in forma pauperis was administratively terminated because
appellant had paid the filing fee for his appeal in Bankruptcy Court. g D.l. 3, Docket
Notation Dec. 28, 2005.
This court dismissed the bankruptcy appeal, and on August 23, 2006, appellant
Hled a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. At
the same time, he tiled a new application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (D.l.
25, 26.) The second application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on October
6, 2006, based upon appellant’s initial application which indicated he had sources of

Case 1:05-cv-00684-*** Document 40 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
income. ge D.l. 1, 34. Appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration of the
October 6, 2006 order. (D.I. 36.)
The court has review the second application to proceed in forma pauperis. lt is
dated August 21, 2006, and indicates that almost a year later, appellant no longer has
any sources of income. Therefore, the court will grant the motion for reconsideration.
Appellant apparently advised the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit that he had paid in full the $455.00 filing fee. g D.I. 39. Appellant, however,
has not paid the $455.0 tiling fee. On two occasions appellant submitted to the District
Court unacceptable forms of payment entitled "Letter of Advice and Legal Notice" and
"Statement of Assignment of Account." (D.l. 27, 33.) Neither submission was legal
tender and neither were considered as fulfilling appeIlant’s obligation to pay the
$455.00 tiling fee.
THEREFORE, at Wilmington this _&_ day of May, 2007, lT lS ORDERED that:
1. Appellant’s "Letter of Advice and Legal Notice" and "Statement of Assignment
of Account" (D.I. 27, 33) are unacceptable forms of payment for the $455.00 tiling fee.
2. AppelIant’s motion for reconsideration (D.l. 36) is granted.
3. The October 6, 2006 order (D.l. 34) denying appellant in forma pauperis
status is vacated.
4. Appellant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (D.l. 26),
dated August 21, 2006 is granted. »
. Nl istrate Judge
-2-