Garland Lee Mitchell, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dominion Chevrolet Corporation; Melvin Layman Lacy, Jr.;james A. Parker, Lieutenant, Defendants-appellees, 51 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 1995)

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his petitions to proceed in forma pauperis in two actions. We vacate and remand with instructions.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be freely granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1988). Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). The proper procedure is for the district court to consider only petitioner's economic status in making the decision whether to file a pro se complaint in forma pauperis. Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948, 950-51 (4th Cir. 1979). Once filed, the complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988) if frivolous or malicious.

Here, although the district court found that Appellant satisfied the poverty requirement to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied the petitions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis based upon consideration of the merits.^*  We find that the district court abused its discretion in so doing. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand the case. Upon remand, the district court should grant Appellant's petitions to proceed in forma pauperis and file the complaints. Once the district court has docketed the complaints, it has broad discretion to dismiss them for frivolity under Sec. 1915(d). Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994), petition for cert. filed, (Jan. 19, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED