of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . This court uses a two-step analysis in evaluating motions to proceed under § 1915. First, the district court evaluates a litigant’s financial status and determines whether (s)he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a). Second, the court assesses the complaint under § 1915(d) to determine whether it is frivolous. Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir.1976). Likewise, when deciding a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, this court grants or denies in forma pauperis status based on economic criteria alone and then, if warranted, dismisses the appeal as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d). See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 n. 2 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See abo 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) which states
recognizing limitations existence in other circuits recognizing that the circuits vary in their interpretations of  1915 but noting that neitzke v williams  us  109 sct 1827 104 led2d 338 1989 declined to rule on the preferred approach holding that ohio revcode  230509d is the most logical and appropriate statute of limitations in a  1983 action based on the united states supreme court holding in owens v okure 488 us 235 109 sct 573 102 led2d 594 1989  recognizingthat the fifth and seventh circuits have adopted the application approach whereas the tenth and eleventh circuits have adopted the registration approach recognizing that prior supreme court precedent to the contrary see patterson v mclean credit union 491 us 164 109 sct 2363 105 led2d 132 1989 was superceded by the 1991 amendments