In law, in forma pauperis (legal Latin for in the way of a pauper) is a specific status that can be granted by courts to a plaintiff who cannot afford to pay filing fees. It’s a way of reducing barriers to access to the law, and is in general a good thing. It has a long history, and probably an equally long history of being abused by rascals.
One important group of people protected by in forma pauperis status, is prisoners. They are often indigent, with any income they make from work in jail being absorbed by price gouging at the commissary. The prison industry is really glad the 13th Amendment contains a carve-out for the incarcerated. covers proceedings in forma pauperis.
Subject to subsection (b), 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 or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.
28 U.S. Code § 1915
Note: may. It is discretionary. The Supreme Court has a boilerplate response:
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.2.
This is not universally popular. Nonetheless, Acerthorn demonstrates why it is necessary.
Acerthorn, you see, has no money. Despite his few thousand followers on YouTube and his extravagant claims of reputation, his statements in his applications for in forma pauperis status reveal that his earned income is nil. He is unemployed, and likely unemployable. He has never, as far as I can see, paid a filing fee in a single case, and withdrawal of IFP status is the end of the road for any case I have reviewed.
When IFP status is withdrawn, he has no option but to drop the suit.
Ha ha! Just kidding. He will often try to file it in another district where he is not under a restriction. Alas for him, courts have access to PACER and – shockingly – his history is blindingly obvious.
Deucerthorn 