California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Adv. Council v. Rowland

• Decision Date: 29 July 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-55600,90-55600
• Citation: 939 F.2d 854
• Parties: CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, UNIT II MEN'S ADV. COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND, Director, James H. Gomez, Sara Bruce, Leslie Bandaccari, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 854

939 F.2d 854

CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, UNIT II MEN'S ADV. COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND, Director, James H. Gomez, Sara Bruce, Leslie

Bandaccari, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-55600.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 9, 1991.

Decided July 29, 1991.

Charles D. Weisselberg, James H. Locklin, University of Southern California Law Center, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard Thomson, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before TANG, REINHARDT and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge:

The California Men's Colony, Unit II, Men's Advisory Council ("the MAC") appeals the district court's denial of its motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a) to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the appellant had not made an adequate showing of indigency as required by Sec. 1915. The court also denied the MAC's request for reconsideration of that ruling. By order of July 20, 1990, we granted the MAC's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of addressing an issue of first impression in this Circuit: whether an organization may proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and we have jurisdiction to review the denial of the MAC's motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Because we find that the plain meaning of the statute indicates that associations may be authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, we reverse the district court's ruling.

BACKGROUND

The MAC, which was created by the warden of California Men's Colony, is an association of inmates, elected by the general prison population, that acts both as an advocate for inmate interests and as a sort of prison administration/inmate liaison. It brought this action alleging violations of the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution based on the Department of Correction's June 1989 directive to all state prison wardens instructing them to discontinue the program, established in 1949, of providing free tobacco to inmates who are unable to afford it. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to have the program reinstated.

At the time it filed the complaint, the MAC also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accompanying the motion was an affidavit signed by William Cochran, the Council's Chairman, indicating that the MAC is prohibited by prison regulations from holding any assets whatsoever. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the ground that the MAC had made an inadequate showing of indigency. In denying the MAC's request for reconsideration of that ruling, the court stated that "[i]f the requesting party wishes to amend its application to proceed in forma pauperis with details of each individual's indigency, the court will consider the amended application."

The MAC chose to file this appeal rather than to reapply.

By order of July 20, 1990, this Court granted the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of addressing on appeal the question whether an organization may proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a). ¹ We also appointed counsel to represent the appellants, and directed the California Attorney General to represent the appellees.

DISCUSSION

The parties agree that the issues raised by this appeal are purely legal questions that we review de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984).

I.

"When construing a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of the language in question." S & M Inv. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 911 F.2d 324, 326 (9th Cir.1990) (citation omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 963, 112 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1991). This "plain meaning rule" is based on the view "that in the vast majority of its legislation Congress does mean what it says and thus the statutory language is normally the best evidence of congressional intent." Church of Scientology v. United States Dept. of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1979). When the plain language appears to settle the question, we " 'look to the legislative history to determine only whether there is clearly expressed legislative intention contrary to that language.' " S & M Inv., 911 F.2d at 327 (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1213 n. 12, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)) (internal quotation omitted).

We must apply these principles of statutory construction to the federal in forma pauperis statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915, which provides in relevant part:

Sec. 1915. Proceeding in forma pauperis

(a) Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a) (emphasis added). This case turns on whether the word "person" as used in Sec. 1915(a) includes associations such as the MAC. The appellant argues that the question is conclusively resolved by reference to 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, which provides in part:

Sec. 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- ... the word[ ] 'person' ... include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals....

1 U.S.C. Sec. 1. The MAC contends that this statutory scheme unambiguously establishes that associations such as itself qualify as a "person" for purposes of Sec. 1915(a), and that a federal court is therefore authorized to permit such an association to proceed in forma pauperis.

This position was first set forth in a dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Bazelon of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in S.O.U.P., Inc. v. F.T.C., 449 F.2d 1142, 1143-45 (D.C.Cir.1971) (per curiam) (Bazelon dissenting). ² The majority in S.O.U.P. assumed without deciding that corporations could proceed in forma pauperis Section 1915(a) provides that a federal court may authorize litigation without prepayment of costs "by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor." [Emphasis added.] The statute's reference to "person" does not indicate, however, that the section has no application to corporations. On the contrary, the statutory guidelines for the interpretation of Congressional acts, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1970), make clear that the term "person" should ordinarily be taken to "include corporations ... as well as individuals." Moreover, there is no indication in the legislative history of Sec. 1915 that Congress intended to depart from this well-established canon of statutory construction.

                but denied the motion on the grounds that the particular corporation involved had not submitted sufficient evidence of its indigency.  Id. at 1142.    Chief Judge Bazelon, believing "that the statute does apply to corporations and that the petitioner has satisfied all reasonable standards which might be applied to test such applications," id. at 1143 (Bazelon dissenting), wrote a persuasive dissent.  We quote in full his concise and compelling discussion of the language of Sec. 1915(a)
                

Id. (footnote omitted). We agree that the plain meaning of Sec. 1915(a), when read in conjunction with 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, indicates that associations can proceed in forma pauperis if they meet the indigency requirements. ³

To overcome the normal presumption in favor of a statute's plain meaning, the appellee argues that the legislative history reveals "no indication whatsoever that Congress intended to extend Sec. 1915 to corporations." This peculiar argument--peculiar because, as we have just seen, the statutory language itself expressly indicates such an intent--is based on the statute's legislative history, or, more specifically, on its amendment in 1959.

From the time the in forma pauperis statute was first enacted in 1892 until 1959, it authorized federal courts to permit a "citizen" to proceed without paying fees and costs. In 1959, however, Congress, in response to a suggestion by the Department of Justice, amended the statute by substituting the word "person" for "citizen." The only piece of legislative history accompanying the amendment is a Senate Report describing its purpose as follows:

The legislative proposal recommended by the Department of Justice would substitute the word "person" for the word "citizen." Thus, indigent aliens would be extended the same privilege of proceedings in forma pauperis as is now afforded citizens. It is the opinion of the Department of Justice that this proposal would be consonant with the ideas or policies of the United States.

In addition, the Judicial Conference of the United States in recommending this legislation pointed out that the distinction between citizens and aliens as contained in existing law may be unconstitutional. Furthermore, it may also be in violation of various treaties entered into by the United States with foreign countries which guarantee to their citizens access of the courts of the United States on the same terms as American citizens.

S.Rep. No. 947, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-4 (1959), reprinted in 1959 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2663, 2664 (emphasis added). The Report does not discuss the statute's applicability to associations, and it does not mention 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1. Relying upon this legislative history, the appellees argue that the...