Where circuit court stated, "[w]e grant Appellants leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny their other pending motions[,]" Petition Appendix (Pet. App.) A at page 2 (No. 18-6487), after bankruptcy court stated, "[t]he court cannot justify waiving the Appeal Fee when the Debtors possess such significant equity in the fully exempt Property[,I Pet. App. C at page 7, id., further stating in footnote 7, that "[t]he Debtors' schedules and court record indicate that most, if not all, judgments are against only one of the Debtors and would not have attached to the tenants by the entireties Property[,]" where thereafter district court affirmed bankruptcy court by stating "[b]ut for the sake of finality, this Court adopts the bankruptcy court's own reasoned explanation as to its jurisdiction over the question[,]" Pet. App. B at page 4, id., and where "[t]he [bankruptcy] court has made no adjudication regarding attachment of judicial liens on the property, but it appears likely that this tenancy by the entirety asset is unencumbered, giving the Debtors a potential to borrow against their interest[,]" Pet. App. C at page 7, id.: is finality lacking for the order appended as Pet. App. C, id., denying in forma pauperis status such that it must be vacated on Petitioner's postjudgment motion given the bankruptcy court erred and district court affirmed the error instead of denying or granting the motion captioned for it rather than a court not defined by 28 U.S.C. § 451 to be one of the "courts of the United States" for determining status needed to bring a motion on appeal for finally adjudicating the issue of attachment of judicial liens on the property of the Petitioner that was not adjudicated by the bankruptcy or district courts for reasons stated by the bankruptcy court and therefore not adjudicated by one of the "courts of the United States" and not at all by an Article III court that is authorized by said statute to finally decide matters of the court's jurisdiction over attachment of liens on grounds relating to statute of limitations when "[tjhe Debtors' complaints against NuCar relate to a levy of funds from the Debtors' bank account[s] (sic) in 2005[]"?

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Appellants' pending motions while granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis