Should the Government Have the Power to Take Away Poor People's Civil Rights? No -- But this is What Federal Judges Are Able to Do, at Their Own Discretion!

When an individual wants to commence an action in federal court, there is a fee to file the complaint. If that individual does not have the funds needed to pay the filing fee, there is a law that allows the court to waive the fee, so that the government pays for the filing of the complaint: that law is - 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). A fee waiver would allow the individual whose income is at or below the federal poverty level to be relieved of costs that he/she is unable to pay so that the individual is not deprived of his/her due process rights. If the court agrees that the applicant’s income is at or below the poverty level, the application for the fee waiver could still be denied if the court considers that the complaint is meritless.

The United States Courts Need to Amend 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) [waiver of fees for filing a complaint] to Achieve Clarity and Soundness in said Rule, and Require Judicial Officers to Follow Federal Law Instead of Using Their Discretion to Deny Such Relief.

The problem occurs when the federal court judges are given discretion to accept or deny an application for a fee waiver based on the annual income exhibited in the fee waiver application.

* What happens if a judge does not follow court rules?

* What if a judge (who is an officer of the court) commits fraud on the court?

* What about our constitution, that provides that any State shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”See Fourteenth Amendment, §1.

As stated in Wikipedia,The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that each state provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (in the form of a pauper), and have the fees waived, if that person complies with 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) (“any court of the United States may authorize the commencement … without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such an affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”).

Judges have discretion to deny a fee waiver application even if the applicant is at or below the poverty level. THIS IS WRONG. This is contrary to the definition of indigency (“extreme poverty in which the basic necessities of life are lacking”). USDC Civil Form CV-60 (Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support) declares: “I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceedings or to give security therefor and that I am entitled to redress.”

For some unknown reason, 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) is so outdated that the code section (statute) refers that a court may authorize the prepayment of fees [fee waiver] by a prisoner; when 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) actually provides that a court may also provide a fee waiver to a non-prisoner. Even though such law is confusing to the normal citizens (non-attorneys), the United States Courts refuse to amend this statute to make it more understandable; by adding that the fee waiver applies to citizens that are not in prison.

This is confirmed by the well-respected treatise of Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), §4.40(1), which states, in part:

“The phrase ‘such prisoner’ was added by 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1915, and an overly literal reading of those amendments might limit in forma pauperis proceedings to prisoner suits. The addition of the reference to prisoners in this subsection of the statute appears, however, to be a typographical error. The statute continues to apply to in forma pauperis applications by indigent persons generally. It is not limited to prisoner suits.”

The failure of the United States not amending 28 U.S.C. §1915, to include that the statute applies to indigent persons generally, is not just a typographical error. It is inferred that the United States intentionally wants the indigent litigant to feel that a waiver of fees is only entitled to prisoner suits; to lessen the amount of FEE WAIVER applications (otherwise the United States would amend the statute to state that such waiver may be obtained by a non-prisoner). To see the instructions and forms for a non-attorney filing a lawsuit in federal court (including the fee waiver form) -- click the following link: CV-058 (Instructions for Filing a Civil Action by a Non-Prisoner).

The United States Courts should not give federal judges the discretion to deny an application “to proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs or give security therefor,” when the applicant has attested, and established, that the income that he/she receives is at or below the official poverty line as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, based on the most recent data available from the Bureau of the Census.

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 9902 (Poverty line) states: “Whenever a State determines that it serves the objectives of the block grant program established under this chapter, the State may revise the poverty line to not to exceed 125 percent of the official poverty line otherwise applicable under this paragraph.”

I live in California, which has set 125 percent of the official poverty line as a mandatory fee waiver standard for the civil courts of California. See California Government Code §68632, which states, in part:

“Permission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of an applicant's financial condition shall be granted initially to all of the following persons: (a) A person who is receiving public benefits under one or more of the following programs: (1) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and State Supplementary Payment (SSP) (Article 5 (commencing with Section 12200) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).”

In addition, §68632(b) confirms 42 U.S.C. §9902(2)(Poverty line), and includes “an applicant's financial condition shall be granted initially” if “[a] person whose monthly income is 125 percent or less of the current poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of paragraph (2) of Section 9902 of Title 42 of the United States Code.”

The state of California provides that a prospective litigant “whose monthly income is 125 percent or less of the current poverty guidelines” shall be granted the fee waiver pursuant to the federal statute of 42 U.S.C. §9902(2)(Poverty line). However, in the same state (California), the federal courts allow federal judges to use their discretion to deny such relief from fees to the same prospective litigant to whom they are “required” to grant relief from fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9902(2)(Poverty line) in the state courts. Also, the California state judges are not allowed to use their discretion if the income is substantiated at or below 125% of the government-defined poverty level.

I Believe That The Court System Is Not Corrupt, And That Courts Were Created To Administer Justice, But There Are Some Judges Who Choose Not To Follow The Law.

I had previously lodged a complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California,with a request to be granted a fee waiver. I am a federally documented disabled individual who receives income from the Social Security Administration. The proposed complaint was lodged after I had received a “Notice of Suit Rights” from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which states, in part:

“Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a state claim may be different.)”

I thought, the Court cannot deny my fee waiver request as meritless since I had approval from the EEOC to commence the lawsuit against my former employers. Otherwise, the EEOC would not have given me a “Notice of Suit Rights” to file my claims in the state or federal court.

The income I received, and presented on my fee waiver application, was below the government-defined poverty level. Because the federal courts have discretion to grant or deny this application, I included the California law that determines the income qualifications pursuant to federal law (42 U.S.C. §9902(2)(Poverty line)). The Order for my fee waiver was denied, with the following comment: “Plaintiff has not shown how state laws regarding in forma pauperis applications apply in federal actions.”

There is no federal rule when applying for a fee waiver that forces an applicant to explain to the court “how state laws regarding in forma pauperis applications apply in federal actions.” As long as the complaint is not meritless or frivolous, the only requirement is proof of the income received.

I then filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis before the Chief United States District Judge, The Honorable Audrey B. Collins. She denied my request and stated, in her order:

“The court has considered the motion and the motion is DENIED. The Court certifies that the proposed appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) and is frivolous, without merit and does not present a substantial question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 753(f).”

Chief Judge Collins has insinuated that my Social Security income, which is based on my disability and which is below the government-defined poverty levels, “is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) and is frivolous, without merit ….”

I contacted the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and spoke with an Executive Clerk to learn how a federal judge could deny my request, when the income I exhibited was below the government-defined poverty level. The Executive Clerk explained to me that federal judges do not like to be told that a statute is mandatory, so that the judge has no choice but to grant the request. He then suggested to me that I file the same complaint again with another fee waiver application, leaving out the statement that the income you receive is shown to require approval by the court pursuant to California Government Code §68632, and the court would probably grant the fee waiver.

I did as suggested, and although my documented income was exactly the same as in the prior request, the fee waiver was granted. The complaint was then litigated in court. However, after having been held up for about four months due to the prior denial by Judge Collins, my claims were dismissed by reason of the statute of limitations.

This action by Judge Collins was wrong and unlawful and violates the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

The Citizens Of The United States Have Got To Put A Stop To The Unlawful Discretionary Actions By The Federal Judges.

It is the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to try to prevent the unlawful actions by the federal judges, who use their discretion in a way that is against the law.

The judges are offering disabled individuals, who are provided income from Social Security that is at or below the government-defined poverty level,unfair treatment–and at the same time reducing the court’s load of cases for the judges’ benefit.The judges are also depriving non-disabled individuals,whose income is at or below the poverty level, of their constitutional right to due process.

I need the help of the ipetitions.com community to tell the United States Courts to follow the law, to stop depriving citizens of a fee waiver that they are entitled to receive based on their income level, and to disallow federal judges from using their discretion to violate the law by denying an applicant’s fee waiver if that applicant's income is at or below the government-defined poverty level.

Please sign this petition, so the same unlawful action by a federal court judge that was done to me is not done to other individuals who might thereby be unlawfully deprived of their due process rights as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Government May Give a Judge Discretion to Rule, But the Government Also Gives the Judge NO Discretion to Violate the Law.

As stated in the United States Supreme Court case of Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920): “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are [254 U.S. 348, 354] not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."

By the United States Supreme Court standards, Judge Collins’ Order was above her authority, and is regarded as “simply void.”

David L. Delman