Anthony Kenney v. Prime Recruitors Trucking Co.

Eighth Circuit

Anthony Kenney v. Prime Recruitors Trucking Co.

611 F. App'x 370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 6, 2015

Docket15-1828

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 F. App'x 370 (Anthony Kenney v. Prime Recruitors Trucking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Kenney v. Prime Recruitors Trucking Co., 611 F. App'x 370 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Kenney moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on an employment-discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court denied Kenney leave to proceed IFP, even though the court found that he was financially eligible, because he failed to state a non-frivolous claim. Kenney challenges this immediately appealable order, see Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam), which we review for an abuse of discretion, see Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 875 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We grant Kenney leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) allows a district court to authorize the filing of a complaint without prepayment of fees when the prospective filer submits an affidavit of poverty. “[W]here the requirements of 28 U.S.C.' § 1915(a) are satisfied on the face of the documents and pleadings submitted, the better practice is for a district court to allow the action to be docketed without prepayment of costs and thereafter to dismiss it, if dismissal is appropriate, even though it may have been judicially determined earlier that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Forester v. Cal. Adult Auth., 510 F.2d 58, 60 (8th Cir.1975).

The District Court in this case did not follow this procedure. Instead, the court denied leave to proceed IFP on the Title VII claim because Kenney had not yet submitted a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). But “failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove.” Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3d 1106, 1107 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam). On appeal, Kenney has provided a copy of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC that pre-dates the complaint, demonstrating that he has exhausted his ad *371 ministrative remedies for the Title VII claim.

Accordingly, we reverse the denial of leave to proceed IFP and remand to the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Kenney moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on an employment-discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court denied Kenney leave to proceed IFP, even though the court found that he was financially eligible, because he failed to state a non-frivolous claim. Kenney challenges this immediately appealable order, see Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam), which we review for an abuse of discretion, see Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 875 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We grant Kenney leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) allows a district court to authorize the filing of a complaint without prepayment of fees when the prospective filer submits an affidavit of poverty. “[W]here the requirements of 28 U.S.C.' § 1915(a) are satisfied on the face of the documents and pleadings submitted, the better practice is for a district court to allow the action to be docketed without prepayment of costs and thereafter to dismiss it, if dismissal is appropriate, even though it may have been judicially determined earlier that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Forester v. Cal. Adult Auth., 510 F.2d 58, 60 (8th Cir.1975).

The District Court in this case did not follow this procedure. Instead, the court denied leave to proceed IFP on the Title VII claim because Kenney had not yet submitted a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). But “failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove.” Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3d 1106, 1107 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam). On appeal, Kenney has provided a copy of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC that pre-dates the complaint, demonstrating that he has exhausted his ad *371 ministrative remedies for the Title VII claim.

Accordingly, we reverse the denial of leave to proceed IFP and remand to the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 F. App'x 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-kenney-v-prime-recruitors-trucking-co-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack