Legal Opinion

Williams v. Marshall

District Court, N.D. California

Decided July 27, 1992No. Nos. C-92-0994-VRW, C-92-1437-VRWPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

WALKER, District Judge.

Williams, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed these two lawsuits challenging conditions of his confinement. In each, Williams has applied to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The benefit extended to litigants to proceed in forma pauperis under this stat*979ute is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir.1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.1968). It is well established that, to obtain this privilege, a litigant must…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt CuppCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. United States v. William F. McQuade and Wilma N. McQuadeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  3. Leroy Jefferson v. United States of America, UndocketedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  4. Flint v. HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
  5. Sales v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. (PC) Aytman v. PfiefferDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
  2. (PC) Brookins v. AcostaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
  3. (PC) Dury v. CiufoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  4. (PC) Garcia v. FolksDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  5. (PC) Goff v. GamezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API