Vincente Gatica Startti v. United States
Vincente Gatica STARTTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I.
Appellant seeks reversal of a district court order denying permission to file his complaint in forma pauperis. We affirm.
Appellant, a Texas convict, had filed in the court below a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering prison authorities “to cease and desist” from the “cruel and unusual punishment with which he is being threatened.” The district court denied the petition. This Court granted a certificate of probable cause.
Appellant alleges that while that appeal was pending, he attempted to file in the court below a petition for a writ of coram nobis and injunctive relief against prison officials. The clerk of court returned the petition unfiled for the reason that the petition asked for the same relief as that sought in the matter then on appeal; thus the petition was returned as being moot.
Appellant thereafter sought to file in forma pauperis the complaint involved in this appeal demanding money damages from the United States “for wrongs done” by the clerk of the district court in his capacity as an employee of the United States. The court below denied leave to file in forma pauperis, stating that the complaint was “insubstantial and devoid of merit.”
There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . It is left to the discretion of the court to which the application is made to determine whether the petition on its face is frivolous or lacking in merit. Irwin v. Burson, 5 Cir. 1968, 389 F.2d 63 ; Gomez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 245 F.2d 346 . We perceive no abuse of this discretion on the part of the court below in refusing to allow appellant to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that the revocation of the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is not new)
-
(stating that a district court exercises discretion in determining whether to extend the privilege of IFP status to plaintiffs who are unable to pay filing fees)
-
(“Legal Def [sic] of Income is derived from stocks[,] bonds[,] div [sic][.] I make Remuneration[.]”)
-
(“There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.”)
-
(affirming finding that prisoner action against clerk was frivolous)
Cited by 142 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Sheneitha Webb, II v. Sheneitha Webb Lori Mary Ann Susan Zitto
- Eric D. Gant v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities
- Bobby Rand Golden, Jr. v. Sergeant Ford
- Seaton Shaver Jones v. Timothy Soignet
- Alfredo Ramirez v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.