Skip to main content

Should Federal Budget Cuts Impact In Forma Pauperis Petitions?


That's the fascinating question raised by Judge King's denial of an in forma pauperis petition on budgetary funding grounds:
Su filed a complaint against Florida International University and Bowling Green State University and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied Su’s application on the ground that it was “without sufficient funds to finance the prosecution of civil litigants.” Su then paid his filing fee.

Su moved for relief from the order denying his application. Su challenged the determination that budgetary restraints prevented him from proceeding without the prepayment of fees and requested “leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Su submitted a letter from the Clerk stating that “[t]here was no set amount of funding for IFP applications” and the decision “[w]hether petitions are granted or not does not depend upon available funding.”

The district court denied Su’s motion. See id. The district court ruled that Su “produced no . . . evidence” that he would “suffer a substantial injustice” from having his application denied because he was able to “borrow the $350 filing fee.”
The 11th Circuit no likey:
The district court abused its discretion when it denied Su’s motion for relief. Su argued that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that the right to proceed without the prepayment of costs was “depend[ent] upon available funding.” When a district court considers an application to proceed in forma pauperis, “[t]he only determination to be made . . . is whether the statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.”
In other words, only the poverty of applicant should be considered -- not the poverty of the federal judiciary.

Comments

  1. Denying on that ground is totally absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here I thought only I could get blood from a stone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There appear to be a number of errors in that 11th Circuit opinion. For exampled, midway through opinion the appellant is referred to a Baker. And the opinion start with a citation to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure when it would appear it should be civil procedure.

    Sloppy from S.D. Fla. to the 11th Cir.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Godwhackers comments are funny

    ReplyDelete
  5. @10:23

    You should see my face!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.