The Article begins by identifying and documenting the range of federal in forma pauperis practice.
In forma pauperis motions do not equip federal judges with the tools to accurately assess a movant's poverty, (5) and federal courts differ in the information they collect about litigants' financial situations.
Also, few federal courts provide back-end guidance for judges presented with an in forma pauperis motion.
Part I uncovers the major flaws in current in forma pauperis practice in federal court.
(15) This Part begins by sketching the historical context of the modern federal in forma pauperis statute.
State prisoners filed a [section] 1983 action and sought permission to proceed
in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
A prisoner whose
in forma pauperis [section] 1983 suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim, moved to prevent further withdrawals on his prison account to satisfy any unpaid portion of the filing fee in his case.
A state inmate, proceeding
in forma pauperis, brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials asserting claims for retaliation, faulty prison drug-testing procedures, and violations of his due process and Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
A prisoner brought an
in forma pauperis civil rights suit against state prison officials, alleging numerous constitutional violations and seeking injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief.
A pro se prisoner sued prison officials under [section] 1983 and the district court granted the prisoner's request to proceed
in forma pauperis, but ordered the prisoner to pay $5.16 as an initial partial filing fee.
A prisoner, proceeding
in forma pauperis, brought a civil rights complaint against prison officials.
A state prisoner sought permission to proceed
in forma pauperis, and brought an action alleging that prison officials prevented him from practicing his religion and forced him to participate in programs that violated his religious beliefs.
