Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David Alan Richardson v. Edward W. Murray E.C. Morris Fred E. Jordan Gwen Thomas J. Edmonds W.P. Rogers, 823 F.2d 548, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    David Richardson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit alleging denial of due process during disciplinary proceedings. He petitioned for in forma pauperis status, and a partial fee of $48.39 was assessed. Upon nonpayment within 30 days, the case was dismissed. The appeals court held that like any litigant, a pro se litigant may have to determine if a claim is worth pursuing based on costs. The district judge has sound discretion to grant in forma pauperis status. Richardson did not object to the fee assessment or cite special circumstances, so the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 823 F.2d 548 Docket: 87-6031

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Richardson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit alleging denial of due process during disciplinary proceedings. He petitioned for in forma pauperis status, and a partial fee of $48.39 was assessed. Upon nonpayment within 30 days, the case was dismissed. The appeals court held that like any litigant, a pro se litigant may have to determine if a claim is worth pursuing based on costs. The district judge has sound discretion to grant in forma pauperis status. Richardson did not object to the fee assessment or cite special circumstances, so the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    David Alan Richardson v. Edward W. Murray E.C. Morris Fred E. Jordan Gwen Thomas J. Edmonds W.P. Rogers, 823 F.2d 548, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Richardson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit alleging denial of due process during disciplinary proceedings. He petitioned for in forma pauperis status, and a partial fee of $48.39 was assessed. Upon nonpayment within 30 days, the case was dismissed. The appeals court held that like any litigant, a pro se litigant may have to determine if a claim is worth pursuing based on costs. The district judge has sound discretion to grant in forma pauperis status. Richardson did not object to the fee assessment or cite special circumstances, so the appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    823 F.

    2d 548

    Unpublished Disposition
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    David Alan RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Edward W. MURRAY; E.C. Morris; Fred E. Jordan; Gwen
    Thomas;
    J. Edmonds; W.P. Rogers, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 87-6031

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 17, 1987.
    Decided June 24, 1987.

    David Alan Richardson, appellant pro se.


    Before SPROUSE, ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    David Richardson filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights suit alleging denial of
    due process during disciplinary proceedings. He petitioned for in forma
    pauperis status. A partial fee of $48.39 was assessed, and upon nonpayment
    within 30 days, the case was dismissed.

    Like any litigant, a pro se litigant may be forced to answer the question whether
    the issue at suit is worth the cost of pursuing the claim. Evans v. Croom, 650
    F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). The granting of in
    forma pauperis status is within the sound discretion of the district judge. Dillard
    v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980). The filing fee is
    precisely 15% of the funds deposited in Richardson's inmate account over the

    past six months. See Evans v. Croom, supra. Richardson did not object to the
    assessment of the fee, nor did he cite special circumstances explaining why the
    filing fee was unfair or excessive.
    3

    We therefore deny leave to file in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
    Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively, we
    dispense with oral argument.

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like