a minus balance was attached. We construe Mr. Montana’s pro se filings in this court liberally, as we are required to under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the denial of the IFP petition and grant Mr. Montana’s petition to proceed IFP on appeal. Discussion As an initial matter, we remind Mr. Montana that the ability to proceed IFP is a privilege, not a right. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir.1998). We review the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for failure to provide prison account statements for an abuse of discretion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Quite frankly, we are troubled by Mr.
recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that a  1915a dismissal as frivolous is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion