Whether the pro se plaintiff-appellant was denied due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment when the district court denied his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his appeal was dismissed

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (i) P RIOR TO PRoSe PLAENTEFFAPRELLAWT— TER Lo yg 7B CRUZ § MOTLoMN Lor By FORMA Phupiers WITH AFFEDQA VET RELY PHY ENE morzen) FOR PERMISScON TO APPEAL TAS FokRmp PhuPEpcs, PRD sp PLADA Tee ETP ELL AWT JER WMS Chur MOTLEN FOR LE WE TO PROCEED EnJ FoRmA Phupters IN THE MWS. Deorrecr COURT FER THE. NORHERN DEStRtEc7 © FEUUDDLS, EASTER PHLSIOW, HosoR ABLE HARRY ©. LEENENWEBER , THBCE, PRE Scop yp FS ORIMSTED, DID PRO SE PLANT ERE APPELLANT TERT Co MATS CRUE ULOLATE RyLEes 24 (@MD Oi) day 24(a)2)(B)iii) OF FeDeRM Rules OF APPELLATE PRECE Dyer AND CiRCurr Rue 3 (b) ATTHE US. COKRT OF APPEALS FOR THE SExy EAH CIRCUIT? @ DID geo st PLAENTLFF—ALPELLANT JERE OD PUTAS Cay eMEET THE INtome. THRESHOLD REQUERE MEAT ImptemeyrEep BY THE U.S. DEPSRIMEWT oF HEALTH fad Hum pal Srvece sy LApeg, THE PREV IS Fo vE 29 Us. Cope SECTIOAS (945-7 é>) IF PRO SE CRETLEF — APPELLANT oper, ah Chey 4 DEVE Se oy ATO KP FRUA PAUPERES, ISN'T pep ° °CEED Sy SE. Plhtn Tie ppp, MMEAS (RUT pMawEp To PROCEED Tf FORMA Phare fete U< CURT OF APPEALS gop-tHe. Stvety CoRCuerINoee iia TROUISEONS oF king PH ONS)OF Feoeent Rues EF ALPELLME. PRocenuke.? t