State of Louisiana Versus Ronda Calderon

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-KH-165

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

RONDA CALDERON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

May 24, 2023

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE RONDA CALDERON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS
MORVANT, DIVISION "M", NUMBER 92-6726

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Robert A. Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT GRANTED; MATTER REMANDED

Relator, Ronda Calderon, seeks review of the district court’s denial of her
application for in forma pauperis status. For the reasons that follow, we grant
relator’s writ application and remand the matter for further proceedings.

In April of 1993, relator pled guilty to possession of heroin, in violation of
La. R.S. 40:966, and was thereafter sentenced to four years imprisonment at hard
labor. On December 28, 1993, this Court affirmed relator’s conviction and
sentence, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied relator’s writ application. State
v. Calderon, 630 So.2d 305 (La. App 5th Cir. 1993), writ denied, 94-1862 (La.
12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1106.

Relator is now attempting to expunge the record of this criminal conviction.
On September 6, 2022, in furtherance of this objective, relator filed an in forma
pauperis affidavit and supporting documentation requesting to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 5181 et seq. On September 20, 2022, the
district court denied relator’s in forma pauperis application, finding that relator
“has not provided any evidence demonstrating that she is unable to pay the court
costs because of her poverty and lack of means.”

On December 5, 2022, relator filed a motion for rehearing and submitted a
revised in forma pauperis affidavit along with supporting documents addressing
the concerns raised by the district court in its September 20, 2022 ruling. The
district court granted relator’s motion and set the matter for hearing on
February 16, 2023. On February 28, 2023, the district court issued a written order
and reasons, in which it denied relator’s revised in forma pauperis application,

23-KH-165

stating: “Petitioner has not made a proper showing that she is entitled to forma
pauperis status because she has again failed to submit specific documentation
proving that she cannot afford to pay the costs associated with a request for
expungement.”

Relator now contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying
her application for in forma pauperis status. We agree.

A trial court is afforded wide discretion in determining whether or not to
grant the privilege to litigate in forma pauperis. In the absence of a clear abuse of
that discretion, an appellate court does not disturb the trial court’s finding.
Benjamin v. National Super Markets, Inc., 351 So.2d 138, 142 (La. 1977), writ
denied, 366 So.2d 561 (La. 1979). In determining a litigant’s qualification to
proceed as an indigent, the courts have taken a realistic view as to the litigant’s
actual ability to advance or secure court costs out of net income available for that
purpose, after payment of reasonable living expenses and debts, and in view of
encumbered property other than a modest family residence. In order to fulfill the
purpose of the privilege of enabling indigent individuals to assert their claims in
court, the jurisprudence has liberally construed the privilege. Id. at 140-41.

In the present case, relator submitted a revised in forma pauperis affidavit,
stating that she was fifty-two years old, single, and had five dependents under the
age of eighteen living with her. She stated that she was employed as a caseworker
with Family Solutions of Louisiana and earned approximately $1,048.00 per month
in gross income. In her affidavit, relator also indicated that she received $215.00
in food stamp assistance each month, that she owed approximately $71,000.00 on
her mortgage and $24,952.89 on her car, and that she had monthly expenses of
approximately $5,568.12, which included a house note, car note, car insurance,
water, food, life insurance, day care, and other items. Attached to her affidavit,
relator provided documentation showing that she was behind in both her car and
house payments, that her water bill was past due, that she was approved for food
stamp assistance in the amount of $215.00 per month, effective July 1, 2022, and
that she was recently approved for six months of mortgage assistance through the
Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Fund. Relator also produced her earnings
statement from Family Solutions of Louisiana, showing her gross pay amounted to
$576.80 for a two-week period. In addition, relator provided a third party affidavit,
signed by Kaylee Harris, who declared that she knew relator “well,” and that
because of relator’s “poverty and want of means,” she was unable to pay the costs
of court in advance or as they accrued.

In its order and reasons denying relator’s application for in forma pauperis
status, the district court acknowledged the documentation submitted by relator
showing that she receives public assistance benefits and that her income is less
than or equal to 125% of the federal poverty line. The district court then stated:

However, Ms. Calderon is requesting indigent status when she owns a
home and vehicle. Not only does mover have a vehicle, it is a vehicle
which by all standards is considered a luxury vehicle. Additionally,
this Court has serious concerns with Ms. Calderon’s valuation of her
assets and monthly expenses.

After considering the intended liberal application of the status, we find that
the district court abused its discretion in denying relator’s request for in forma

2

pauperis status in this matter.1 As acknowledged by the district court, relator
presented documentation showing that she received public assistance benefits in
the form of food and mortgage assistance and that her income was less than or
equal to 125% of the federal poverty line. Thus, relator was entitled to the
presumption of indigent status, as set forth La. C.C.P. art. 5183 (B)(2), which reads
as follows:

The submission by the applicant of supporting documentation that the
applicant is receiving public assistance benefits or that the applicant’s
income is less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five percent of the
federal poverty level shall create a rebuttable presumption that the
applicant is entitled to the privilege granted in this Chapter. If the
court finds that the presumption has been rebutted, it shall provide
written reasons for its finding.

As suggested in its reasons for denying relator’s application, the district
court apparently found that relator’s ownership of a home and luxury vehicle, a
2017 Lexus, rebutted the statutory presumption of indigence relator was entitled to
under La. C.C.P. art. 5183(B)(2), despite the fact that relator was in arrears with
regard to her mortgage and car note. We find that the district court’s reliance on
relator’s ownership of a home and vehicle does not constitute sufficient grounds
for rebutting relator’s presumed indigence.2 See State v. Benjamin, 351 So.2d at
141. Further, while the district court expressed doubt on relator’s valuations of her
assets and monthly expenses, there was no evidence presented at the hearing to
rebut relator’s assertion that she is currently indigent and unable to pay court costs.
See State v. Young, 22-454 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/14/22), 2022 WL 7935147
(unpublished writ disposition).

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we grant relator’s writ application and
remand the matter for further proceedings.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 24th day of May, 2023.

RAC
FHW

1
Relator apparently filed an in forma pauperis application in what she describes as a “related case” for which she
sought expungement in the 24th Judicial District Court (case number 02-5452). According to relator, in that case,
which is in a different section of court, the district court granted relator’s in forma pauperis application.
2
In its reasons denying relator’s in forma pauperis status, the district court noted that relator’s “income is based on a
twenty-hour work week, and not full time employment of forty hours per week.” However, in relator’s motion for
rehearing, she explained that as a caseworker, her “pay is variable and unpredictable” because she “only gets paid on
an hourly basis and only as client needs demand.”
3

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-KH-165

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

RONDA CALDERON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

WINDHORST, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS

I respectfully dissent, and would deny this writ. Considering the claims made

by relator, the specific reasons for denial given by the trial judge, and the broad

discretion afforded the trial court, I see no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

Pauper status, or the ability to litigate without prior payment of costs is a

privilege, not a right, and one seeking to take advantage of this privilege must clearly

be entitled to it, must apply for permission to do so, and must submit specific

documentation. Lepine v. Lepine, 17-45 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/15/17), 223 So.3d 666,

672. The trial court is afforded wide discretion in determining whether to grant the

privilege to litigate in forma pauperis, and its determination is reviewed for an abuse

of that discretion. Id.; Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 03-1626 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/22/03),

860 So.2d 104, 108, writ denied, 03-2964 (La. 1/9/04), 862 So.2d 995.

Further, this does not involve indigent counsel for trial; it involve costs, which

are paid by the vast majority of even indigent criminal defendants. Relator’s

application is pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 5181 and 5183, civil provisions.

In this case, the trial judge has assessed pauper status, and I do not find that

she exceeded her wide discretion, or abused it.

SJW

23-KH-165

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
CORNELIUS E. REGAN, PRO TEM FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 05/24/2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-KH-165
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Shayna Beevers Morvant (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Laura Anne Reeds (Relator)
Attorney at Law
Justice & Accountanbility Center of
Louisiana
4035 Washington Avenue
Suite 203
New Orleans, LA 70125

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and add"'88 on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:

Laura Anne Reeds
Attom_i;y afLaw
4035 Washington Avenue
Suite203
New Orleans, LA 70125
23-KH-165 05-24-23
3. Service Type D Priority Mal ElCpl'llS99
D Adult Signlllln D Registered Mall""
II lllllll llll Ill 111111111 111111111111111111111 Ofajult Signatu'e Re8trlcted oellvery
!ifCertlfted Malle
Cl~ Mall Reelrlcl8d

9590 9402 2434 6249 3633 21 D Certlfted Mall RellJ1cled DeaWlly
......,,..--..,....,,....,.-...,..,----=::----::-----------1 D Collllct on Dellvery
~~fw
,ft.._,.
2. Article Number (Transfer from service .....,..,, -D Collect on Ill
Oellvery Res111cted Oellvery0 Signature Conftrmatlon""
0 Signature Confirmation
7016 2070 oaoo 0954 b861 lllReslrlctedDellvery Restrlcled Dellvery

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt :