Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 498

Decision Date28 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 498,D,498
Citation701 F.2d 243
PartiesCarl D. POTNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee. Carl D. POTNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUFFOLK POLICE, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 82-7076.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Thomas J. Moloney, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant. *

Before MANSFIELD and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and NEAHER, Senior District Judge. **

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, as plaintiff pro se, sought to file two complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, each alleging violations of his civil rights by the named defendants. Claiming inability to pay the required filing fees, appellant applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a). The district court denied both applications initially and on reconsideration, concluding that appellant's affidavit of current income and assets warranted a finding "that the costs of filing and of serving the complaint would not bar access to this court." Our review of the record leads us to conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deny appellant the relief sought. We therefore reverse and remand both cases for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The fee for filing a civil action in the district court is $60. Unless granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appellant would have had to pay $120 to file his two complaints. His initial application for such leave listed a monthly income of $181 in welfare benefits, $41 in food stamps, a checking account balance of $59.77 and a 1974 Buick on which he owed $3600. In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff added that he had debts, largely medical bills, totalling more than $10,000 and that his checking account balance was not additional savings but only a portion of his stated welfare benefits which he used to pay bills.

Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution; no party must be made to choose between abandoning a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 89, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). Plaintiff's monthly benefits are significantly below poverty level, and his income, minimal bank account balance, and substantial debt reflect greater financial hardship than has been presented in many successful in forma pauperis applications in the Southern District of New York. 1 We therefore conclude that plaintiff's financial condition warrants in forma pauperis status. See, e.g., In re Smith, 600 F.2d 714, 715-16 (8th Cir.1979).

In reaching our conclusion we are not unmindful of the mounting concern over the ever-increasing caseload burdening the federal courts, and the growing view that judges must be alert to prevent the dissipation of limited judicial resources on claims that are frivolous or are brought in bad faith. The learned district judge may well have been concerned that granting the relief sought here would accomplish nothing, since the defendants sued appear to be residents of Virginia who would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York. The statutory scheme recognizes, however, that whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status and whether his claims have merit present two distinct issues. 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1915(a) and (d). See, e.g., Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
164 cases
  • Walker v. Flynn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 27 Junio 2022
    ...has noted, “no party must be made to choose between abandoning a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life.” Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244 Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). In support of an IFP application, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires that a plaintiff submit an affidavit reflecting ......
  • Taft v. Sassman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 6 Febrero 2012
    ...is untrue" when it assesses the affidavit supporting an application to proceed in forma pauperis); see also Potnick v. Eastern State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (concluding the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 were met because plaintiff received public assistance income of $222.......
  • Cohen v. John Tinsley & Regulatory Ins. Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 5 Abril 2017
    ...(3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)); see also Potnick v. Eastern State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1983); Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990 (7th Cir. 1980). Some courts have explained that all a plaintiff needs to show is that b......
  • Schon v. Schumacher
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 11 Julio 2013
    ...is untrue" when it assesses the affidavit supporting an application to proceed in forma pauperis); see also Potnick v. Eastern State Hosp. , 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (concluding the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 were met because plaintiff received public assistance income of $222......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT