Rhodney Reck, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Defendant-appellee, 989 F.2d 500 (6th Cir. 1993)

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and COHN, District Judge.^* 

ORDER

Rhodney Reck, a pro se litigant, appeals from an order of the district court denying him in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Reck states in his complaint that he was not provided an "adequate [or] satisfactory education." No facts were set forth within the complaint to support this claim. The district court determined that Reck's claims were without a legal basis in law.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We review the district court's order for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992).

We are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reck in forma pauperis status. His complaint lacks an arguable basis in law.

We do not address the substance of defendant's motion to dismiss. That motion is filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not properly before this court. Further, it asks for relief based upon the merits of Reck's complaint. A dismissal pursuant to § 1915(d) is not a dismissal on the merits. Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied, Reck's motion to strike and for payment is denied, and the order of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.