Document Type
Article
Publication Date
4-2019
Abstract
What must a poor person plead to gain access to the federal courts? How do courts decide when a poor litigant is poor enough? This Article answers those questions with the first comprehensive study of how district courts determine when a litigant may proceed in forma pauperis in a civil lawsuit. It shows that district courts lack standards to determine a litigant’s poverty and often require litigants to answer an array of questions to little effect. As a result, discrepancies in federal practice abound—across and within district courts—and produce a pleading system that is arbitrary, inefficient, and invasive.
The Article makes four contributions. First, it codes all the poverty pleadings currently used by the ninety-four federal district courts. Second, it shows that the flaws of these procedures are neither inevitable nor characteristic of poverty determinations. By comparing federal practice to other federal means tests and state-court practices, the Article demonstrates that a more streamlined, yet rights-respecting approach is possible. Third, the Article proposes a coherent in forma pauperis standard—one that would align federal practice with federal law, promote reasoned judicial administration, and protect the dignity of litigants. Such a solution proves that judges need not choose between extending access to justice and preserving court resources. In this instance and perhaps others, judges can serve both commitments of the federal system. Fourth, the Article illustrates how to study procedure from the bottom up. Given the persistent and widening levels of inequality in American society, no account of civil procedure is complete without an understanding of how poor people litigate today.
Recommended Citation
Andrew Hammond, Pleading Poverty in Federal Court , 128 Yale L.J. 1478 (2019)