Ehler v. Post-Prison Transfer Bd., 2015 Ark. 139

Petitioner Richard Ehler seeks to proceed in forma pauperis to file a motion to lodge the record for a petition for judicial review.
Affidavit of indigency is appended; motion to proceed in forma pauperis tendered but not filed-marked or case-numbered.
Proposed order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shows a handwritten date September 14, 2014 and ‘Petition Denied’ initialed by Judge TDF.
Circuit clerk did not file-mark or assign a case number because no filing fee was submitted and the motion was denied.
Petitioner timely tendered the appeal record to this Court on December 22, 2014, but clerk rejected for lack of a file-marked order of denial.
The Court denies the petition to proceed in forma pauperis and notes that the lack of an effective order affects appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ehler states a colorable claim to proceed in forma pauperis	Ehler contends indigency entitles him to IFP entry	No colorable claim shown under Rule 72	Petition denied; no colorable claim shown
Whether denial of IFP affects ability to file an appeal	Appeal based on denial of IFP	No effective order of denial filed, so no appealable judgment	No effective order to appeal; appeal not proper
Whether a filed order or entry is required to confer jurisdiction or permit proceedings	Indigent status should allow proceeding despite filing status	Absence of filed order prevents action and funding	Judgment not effective without proper filing/entry
Whether the absence of a filed fee violates due process when no fundamental right involved	Filing fees impose due process concerns	No due process violation when no fundamental right involved	No due process issue; fees may be required

Brown v. Sachar, 2013 Ark. 319 (Ark. 2013) (colorable cause of action required for IFP in civil matters)
McGhee v. Ark. Bd. of Collection Agencies, 368 Ark. 60, 243 S.W.3d 278 (Ark. 2006) (oral orders are not effective until reduced to writing and filed)