Wе are called upon today to determine whether corporations are entitled to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Concluding that Congress did not intend corporations to be “persons” for purposеs of that statute, we hold that corporations may not be granted IFP status.
I.
Plaintiff FDM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“FDM”), is a Louisiana corporation organized and managed by Frank Morgan. Frank Morgan’s brother, Alford Morgan, owned a building which FDM and Frank Morgan leased to operate a business. Defendant Scottsdale Insurancе Company (“Scottsdale”) issued a fire insurance policy on the building, which six weeks later was destroyed by firе.
FDM sued Scottsdale to recover on the policy; Scottsdale defended on the ground of arson. After a non-jury trial, the district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment for Scottsdale, denying all recovery. FDM filed notice of appeal and a motion to proceеd IFP. Without addressing the question of whether a corporation can be granted IFP status, the district court deniеd the motion on the ground that the affidavit attached to it was not signed by a corporate officer.
II.
On appeal, FDM renews its request for IFP status. The question of whether a corporation is entitled to the benefits of section 1915(a) as it now reads is one of first impression in this circuit. No court of
*214
appeals,
1
and only a few district courts,
2
have squarely addressed the issue. We are guided and persuaded by the thorough and compelling analysis of this issue in
Move Org. v. United States Dep’t of Justice,
Section 1915(a) permits a court to authorize “a person,” in appropriate circumstances, to сommence an action without payment of costs. In determining whether Congress intended that a corporation be considered a “person” for purposes of the statute, we are confrontеd with both statutory provisions and legislative history..
Title 1 U.S.C. § 1 sets forth general rules for construing the United States Code. It рrovides that “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise ... the word [ ] ‘рerson’ ... include[s] corporation_” Although the text of section 1915(a) provides us with no immediate answer to whether a corporation is a “person,” the section’s legislative history provides compеlling evidence that that is not what Congress intended.
As noted in
Move Org.,
the’ IFP statute, until its amendment in 1959, used the word “citizen” rather than “person.” Hence, it was clear, before 1959, that a corporation could not be deemed a “citizen” for purposes of IFP status, and this court held conclusively that “corporations are not entitled to sue or appeal in forma pauperis.”
Atlantic S.S. Corp. v. Kelley,
The 1959 amendment tо section 1915(a) changed only one word — from “citizen” to “person.” The only reason given, in the legislativе history, for the change was to grant IFP status to aliens.
See
S.Rep. No. 947, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-4 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 650, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3 (1959)),
reprinted in
1959 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2663, 2664-65 (cited in
Move Org.,
This legislative histоry is convincing. We would be impermissibly reading more into the statute than Congress intended if we were to hold that the 1959 amendment added corporations as well as aliens to the list of those entitled to seek IFP status. While there may be perfectly sensible policy grounds for allowing financially strapped corpоrations to proceed IFP, we must leave it to the legislative branch to make that determination. As Judge Giles states in
Move Org.,
“although the policy analysis ... may be a valid method of common-law rulemaking, it is inapprоpriate as a method of .construing this statute [footnote omitted]. It gives the word ‘person’ a meaning whiсh cannot reasonably be found in the intent of Congress.”
Moreover, this court has already rejectеd the policy reasons proffered for treating indigent corporations like indigent natural persоns:
*215
Atlantic S. S. Corp. v. Kelley,
*214 There would be no logical reason for extending the same privilege to corporations. Corporations, if litigants, may be presumed to have sufficient assets to pay costs or, if not, the stockholders would have sufficient interest to furnish security. Our conclusion is that the benefit of the law is confined to natural persons and corporations are not entitled to sue or appeal in forma pauperis.
*215 III.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that FDM’s appeal is entirely frivolоus. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fifth Cir.Loc.R. 42.2.
The district court’s findings were based upon its credibility dеterminations and upon the uneontradicted testimony of Scottsdale’s expert. Appellant has nоt suggested any basis upon which we would hold that the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous.
See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a);
Pittman v. Gilmore,
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Notes
.
But see S.O.U.P., Inc. v. F.T.C.,
.
Move Org. v. United States Dep’t of Justice,