No. 2627 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Hollins v. Moore

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed March 12, 1969 · 220 So. 2d 103

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., June 20, 1926 4 La. App. 394; La., January 15, 1873 25 La. Ann. 59; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., June 5, 1967 200 So. 2d 34

Cited by

Charles Harrison v. Dr. Andrew Minardi La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Harrison v. Minardi 968 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Roy v. Gulf States Utilities Company 307 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Houston v. Brown 292 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Vidrine v. City of Crowley 251 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Best v. J & B DRILLING COMPANY 152 So. 2d 119

Opinion text

SAVOY, Judge. This matter is on appeal from a judgment of the district court revoking a previous order allowing plaintiff to file the instant suit in forma pauperis under the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Article 5181 et seq. The record reveals that plaintiff has an income of $374.00 per month and has the usual household expenses. In Best v. J & B Drilling Company, 152 So.2d 119 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1963), this Court affirmed a ruling of the district court revoking a previous order allowing plaintiff in that suit to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff applied to our State Supreme Court for writs, which were refused. In the Best case, supra, plaintiff was earning $85.00 per week and owned his home. We recognize that the act allowing one to sue in forma pauperis should be liberally construed. On the other hand, the appellate courts should allow the district courts discretion in these cases so that there will not be an abuse of the act. See LSA-C.C.P. Article 5182. Considering the evidence in the instant case we cannot say that the trial judge abused the discretion vested in him in determining which litigant should be allowed to proceed as a pauper. Having determined that plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper, it is not necessary to decide the alternative defense that she is not a citizen of this State, and, therefore, cannot file suit as a pauper because of the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Article 5181, which article states that only citizens of this State may avail themselves of the right to sue without payment of court costs. For the reasons assigned the judgment of the district court is affirmed at appellant’s costs. Affirmed.