Garland Lee Mitchell, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Buckhead Franchising, Incorporated, A/k/a Richmond Host,limited; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Mr.patal; Martha Wood; Wood's Graphic Art Company,incorporated; the Freedom House; City of Richmond, City Ofrichmond Street Team; Nancy Gowan, Defendants Appellees, 42 F.3d 1386 (4th Cir. 1994)

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his petitions to proceed in forma pauperis in six 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 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).

We deny as moot Appellant's motion to expedite his appeal and 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