Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr. v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden at FCI- Englewood, CO

PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden at FCI-
Englewood, CO,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 21-1094
_________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00418-GPG)
_________________________________
Submitted on the briefs:*
Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., Pro Se.
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.
_________________________________
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 17, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1094 Document: 010110620558 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals the district court’s denial of his in forma
pauperis application. His underlying claim is for compassionate release under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The claim is based primarily on the alleged understaffing of prisons
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court denied Fourstar’s IFP motion
because it found that Fourstar did have the funds to pay the five-dollar filing fee.
Fourstar appealed that decision on March 19, 2021. 1 But on March 30, 2021,
Fourstar paid the filing fee. Because Fourstar paid the filing fee, this particular
denial of IFP status is not reviewable on collateral appeal. Thus, we have no
jurisdiction and must dismiss his appeal.
The denial of an in forma pauperis application is usually one of the small class
of decisions that may be appealed before the district court issues a final judgment.
See Lister v. Dep’t Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). But we have appellate
jurisdiction over an IFP denial only if the denial effectively bars further litigation.
Cohen, 377 U.S. at 546 (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1291). To be reviewable, a
collateral order must “render impossible any review whatsoever.” Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 376 (1981). Where a petitioner pays his filing
fee, the denial of his IFP motion does not bar further litigation. The petitioner will
1 Fourstar’s brief does not actually address the denial of his IFP motion.
Because Fourstar did not advance a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts” regarding the district court’s denial of his IFP motion, his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal is also denied. See Lister v. Dep’t Treasury, 408 F.3d
1309, 1310 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 21-1094 Document: 010110620558 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
have the opportunity to contest the IFP denial after a final judgment is issued. Thus,
the denial is not a final, appealable order under Cohen. Here, since Fourstar paid his
filing fee, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear his appeal.
We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand for further
proceedings in the district court.
Appellate Case: 21-1094 Document: 010110620558 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --