Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., CIV.A. 00-2290-KHV.
Decision Date | 28 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 01-2067-KHV.,No. CIV.A. 00-2290-KHV.,CIV.A. 00-2290-KHV.,CIV.A. 01-2067-KHV. |
Citation | 148 F.Supp.2d 1154 |
Parties | Xiangyuan (Sue) ZHU, Plaintiff, v. COUNTRYWIDE REALTY COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Xiangyuan (Sue) Zhu and Ye Zhu, Plaintiffs, v. Countrywide Realty Company, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Xiangyuan Zhu, Topeka, KS, Pro se.
Thomas G. Lemon, Todd D. Powell, Fischer, Cavanaugh, Smith & Lemon, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Defendants.
Pro se Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor child, has filed Applications for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees, Costs, or Security in both consolidated cases (docs. 158 & 172) and has submitted her child's affidavit of financial status in support thereof. She seeks a waiver of the $150.00 filing fees, which has already been paid by the Plaintiff in both cases. Plaintiff also has filed in both cases, on behalf of her minor child, Applications for Appointment of Counsel in an Action for Discrimination in Housing Under Section 3613(b) of Title 42 (docs. 159 & 171).
Initially, the Court notes that a pro se plaintiff does not have the right to represent a minor child in federal court. Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir.1986). However, courts have implied an exception for certain limited motions, such as requesting appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis status. See Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d 225, 231 (3rd Cir.1998); Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 883 (3rd Cir.1991); Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61-62 (2nd Cir.1990); Heilenbach v. Consolidated School Dist. of 118, No. 97-C-7519, 1998 WL 26164 (N.D.Ill. Jan.20, 1998). To hold otherwise would effectively bar a minor pro se litigant from a means of obtaining counsel to represent their claims. Accordingly, the Court will take up pro se Plaintiff's Applications for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees, Costs, or Security and for Appointment of Counsel, filed on behalf of her minor child.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) sets forth the circumstances under which an individual is allowed to bring proceedings in forma pauperis. That statute provides that "any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding ... without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit ... that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor."
Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case "is a privilege, not a right— fundamental or otherwise." White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1008, 119 S.Ct. 1150, 143 L.Ed.2d 216 (1999). The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Cabrera v. Horgas, No. 98-4231, 1999 WL 241783, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr.23, 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 832, 121 S.Ct. 86, 148 L.Ed.2d 47 (2000). This is especially true in civil cases for damages wherein the courts should grant the privilege "sparingly." Buggs v. Riverside Hosp., No. 97-1088-WEB, 1997 WL 321289, at *8 (D.Kan. Apr.9, 1997). In denying such applications, however, a court must not act arbitrarily or deny the application on erroneous grounds. Id.
In a number of cases, courts have found that the income and assets of close family members are relevant to a determination of indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Heilenbach, 1998 WL 26164 at *2; Williams v. Spencer, 455 F.Supp. 205, 208-209 (D.Md.1978); Lee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:92-cv-465AS, 1993 WL 316756, *5 (N.D.Ind. Aug.18, 1993); Bryant v. Whalen, No. 88 C 4834, 1992 WL 198946, *5 (N.D.Ill. Aug.12, 1992); Monti v. McKeon, 600 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D.Conn.1984). In particular, courts have held that the financial resources of both the minor and the parent should be considered in determining the ability to pay the costs of litigation. Bryant, 1992 WL 198946 at *5 (); Williams, 455 F.Supp. at 209 ().
The Court notes that Plaintiff only provided information on the financial status of her minor child and not herself in the Affidavit of Financial Status submitted along with these motions. Unless Plaintiff provides a financial affidavit reflecting her financial resources, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff's minor child can proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff presumably has the financial ability to pay the fees and costs of litigation since she has already paid the $150.00 filing fee in both cases and since Plaintiff did not file her own Application for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees, Costs, or Security. Accordingly, pro se Plaintiff's Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (docs. 158 & 172), filed on behalf of her minor child, are DENIED.
Plaintiff also has filed, on behalf of her minor child, Applications for Appointment of Counsel in an Action for Discrimination in Housing Under Section 3613(b) of Title 42 (docs. 159 & 171).
42 U.S.C. § 3613(b) provides for the appointment of attorney by the court:
Upon application by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practice or a person against whom such a practice is alleged, the court may—(1) appoint an attorney for such person; or (2) authorize the commencement or continuation of a civil action under subsection (a) of this section without the payment of fees, costs, or security, if in the opinion of the court such person is financially...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kongtcheu ex rel. JK v. Constable
...had it assessed his motion under § 3613(b)(1), and no plausible explanation is otherwise apparent. See Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1157 (D. Kan. 2001) (finding standard for appointing counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) instructive in applying § 3613(b)(1)); see......
-
Harris v. Rosenstein
...2002) quoting Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 208-09 (D. Md. 1978) (other citations omitted); see Zhu v. CountrywideRealty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1156 (D. Kan. 2001) ("In a number of cases, courts have found that the income and assets of close family members are relevant to a det......
-
Soniat v. Mitchell
...WL 1337630, at *3; Jackson v. Park Place Condos. Ass'n, Inc., 2014 WL 494789, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2014); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1157 (D. Kan. 2001). Those courts follow factors identified by the Tenth Circuit when evaluating a motion for appointment of couns......
-
Soniat v. Tex. Real Estate Comm'n
...and persuasive. See Jackson v. Park Place Condos. Ass'n, Inc., 2014 WL 494789, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2014); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1157 (D. Kan. 2001). Those courts follow factors identified by the Tenth Circuit when evaluating a motion for appointment of coun......