Stephen Bryant, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of University City, Defendant/Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Stephen Bryant, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of University City, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: ED82684 Handdown Date: 05/20/2003 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Barbara W. Wallace Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: John F. Mulligan, Jr. Opinion Summary: Stephen Bryant appeals from the court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: The court's order is not a final, appealable judgment where it does not finally dispose of at least one claim on the merits and is a ruling on a miscellaneous issue that does not resolve at least one claim. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: The appellant, Stephen Bryant, filed a petition for damages against the defendant. Simultaneously, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis . The trial court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court concluded that the clerk should file the matter, but it would take no further action unless the filing fee was paid. If the filing fee was not paid, then the matter would be dismissed without prejudice. Appellant appeals the order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis . We dismiss for lack of a final, appealable judgment. We must first determine sua sponte whether the trial court's order is appealable. Clark v. Myers , 945 S.W.2d 702, 703

(Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Generally, for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment in the case. Section 512.020, RSMo

1. If the trial court's judgment is not final, this Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Committee for

Educ. Equality v. State , 878 S.W.2d 446, 454 (Mo. banc 1994). For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must be one that finally disposes of at least one claim on the merits and not a ruling on miscellaneous issues that does not resolve at least one claim. See, Gibson v. Brewer , 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, the trial court's order denying the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis does not resolve one claim in the underlying suit or even constitute a judgment. Moreover, it appears the suit was filed and the court has not dismissed it. Therefore, there is no final, appealable judgment. We directed the appellant to show cause why we should not dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. The appellant has failed to file a response. The appellant's review, if any, may be by way of extraordinary writ. See, State ex rel. Coats v. Lewis , 689 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985). We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.