Kelsey D. Bartlett v. Dr. Joseph Duty, 271 F.2d 264 (6th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Kelsey D. Bartlett v. Dr. Joseph Duty, 271 F.2d 264 (6th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kelsey D. BARTLETT, Appellant,
v.
Dr. Joseph DUTY Et Al., Appellees
264.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 1, 1959.
271 F.2d 264
Kelsey D. Bartlett, in pro. per., Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Dan H. McCullough, Spengler, Nathanson, Hey-man, McCarthy & Durfee, Toledo, Ohio, William M. Yance, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis states only in general terms the nature of the litigation and does not state the alleged error or errors on the part of the District Judge, about which he complains. The affidavit fails to show what merit, if any, there is in his appeal. Morris v. Igoe, 7 Cir., 209 F.2d 108; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 812, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 954, 72 S.Ct. 1048, 96 L.Ed. 1354.

The affidavit is insufficient to support the application to proceed in forma pauperis, Kenney v. Fox, 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 288, certiorari denied Kenney v. Killian, 352 U.S. 855, 77 S.Ct. 84, 1 L.Ed.2d 66; Cuiksa v. City of Mansfield, 6 Cir., 250 F.2d 700; Loum v. Underwood, 6 Cir., 262 F.2d 866; Hullom v. Burrows, 6 Cir., 266 F.2d 547.

The motion to proceed in forma pau-peris is denied without prejudice.