if given yet another opportunity to add more facts to the complaint.” Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d at 97. “Dismissals under the in forma pauper-is statute are in a class of their own, acting not as dismissals on the merits but, rather, as denials of in forma pauperis status.” Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504, 1505 (5th Cir.1997). “Exceptions inelude[ ] complaints containing claims which, on then-face, [are] subject to an obvious meritorious defense, or instances in which the plaintiff was given an opportunity to expound on the factual allegations by a Watson questionnaire or a Spears hearing and could not assert a claim with an arguable factual basis, or claims without an arguable basis in law.” Id. (footnotes omitted). See Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th
holding that motion made under 28 usc  1915 was properly denied where appellants were unable or unwilling to verify their poverty holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc  1915 recognizing that a court is not limited in what it may consider in determining whether parental rights should be terminated holding that conduct contained in dismissed counts may be considered by a district court in determining whether to depart from the applicable guideline range recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part