In re Stump, Misc. No. 509.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1971
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 509.
• Citation: In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297 (1st Cir. 1971)
• Parties: In re James P. STUMP, Petitioner.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

449 F.2d 1297 (1971)

In re James P. STUMP, Petitioner.

Misc. No. 509.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

October 29, 1971.

James P. Stump, pro se, on motion and brief in support thereof.

Courtland D. Perry, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief in opposition to motion.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Although the amount of money involved in this case is small, the principle is not, but is of some general importance.

Petitionerappellant, a state prisoner, formerly at large on parole, had his parole revoked under procedures that he alleges were unconstitutional.In the light of present judicial concern over parole practices generally we are not prepared to say that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint which he sought to file in the district court is frivolous on its face.Nor did the district court.That court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), on the ground that he had sufficient means, thereby requiring him to pay the $15 filing fee.Petitioner admits to having a cash credit with the warden of $78.00.He lists no outstanding debts.The warden has certified that his credit is $218.Rather than pay the fee, petitioner brings this petition for mandamus, seeking an order recognizing his right to proceed in forma pauperis.

We have previously, in other connections, held that a plaintiff, even though of small means, could reasonably be asked to some small degree to "put his money where his mouth is," it being all too easy to file suits, even with...