Vincente Gatica Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Vincente Gatica Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
155 citation events (121 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jason Contreras v. Cps Energy, No. 5:25-cv-00774 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1116 Privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is not absolute right116 citing cases“there is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.”32 citing courts quote it · 49 listed here
  • Angelia Smith & Kelvin Smith v. Microtel Inns & Suites Franchising, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00071 (S.D. Miss. May 14, 2026).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Rodriguez, No. 2:26-cv-00713 (E.D. La. Apr. 30, 2026).
    Standard of Law “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United…
  • Hyers, No. 2:26-cv-00286 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2026).
    Doc. 8. action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969).
  • Kelly, No. 1:26-cv-00102 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 13, 2026).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Savoy, No. 2:26-cv-00664 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2026).
    DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 7 Prows, 842 F.2d at 140 . 8 See Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969); see also Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that the revocation…
  • Jones, No. 3:26-cv-00162 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 1, 2026).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Cofield, No. 2:26-cv-00248 (E.D. La. Mar. 4, 2026).
    Mandatory Screening Provisions “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” St…
  • Chan, No. 2:25-cv-01959 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 2026).
    Standard of Law “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United…
  • Senior, No. 2:25-cv-02375 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2026).
    James v. Richardson, 344 F. App’x 982, 983 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of frivolous IFP actions even if those actions are brought by non-prisoners plaintiffs.” (citing Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th…
  • Senior, No. 2:25-cv-02417 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2026).
    James v. Richardson, 344 F. App’x 982, 983 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of frivolous IFP actions even if those actions are brought by non-prisoners plaintiffs.” (citing Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th…
Show 39 more citing cases
  • Wilson, No. 3:25-cv-00993 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 15, 2026).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Jynes, No. 2:25-cv-01062 (E.D. La. Jan. 7, 2026).
    Screening Standards “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. Un…
  • Harris, No. 2:25-cv-02519 (E.D. La. Dec. 30, 2025).
    Instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when it is apparent 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1). 2 Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). 3 Prows, 842 F.2d at 140 (citing Smith v. Ma…
  • Turner, No. 3:25-cv-00854 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 1, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Jacquet, No. 2:25-cv-02349 (E.D. La. Nov. 25, 2025).
    James v. Richardson, 344 F. App’x 982, 983 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of frivolous IFP actions even if those actions are brought by non-prisoner plaintiffs.” (citing Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th C…
  • Anthony Green, Jr. v. Frank Bisignano, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:25-cv-00538 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2025).
    However, “[t]here is no absolute right to proceed in court without paying a filing fee in civil matters”; rather, “it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees.” Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988) 1 See a h…
  • Showers, No. 2:25-cv-01668 (E.D. La. Nov. 17, 2025).
    Mandatory Screening Provisions “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” St…
  • Curtis Lanson Mitchell v. Nancy A. Miller, ET AL., No. 2:25-cv-02275 (E.D. La. Nov. 10, 2025).
    James v. Richardson, 344 F. App’x 982, 983 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of frivolous IFP actions even if those actions are brought by non-prisoners plaintiffs.” (citing Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th…
  • Arrington, No. 2:25-cv-01505 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2025).
    “It is left to the discretion of the court to which the application is made to determine whether the petition on its face is frivolous or lacking in merit.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e…
  • Williams-Bey, No. 3:25-cv-00379 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2025).
    DISCUSSION “There is no absolute right to proceed in court without paying a filing fee in civil matters.” Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir.1969)).
  • Payton, No. 2:25-cv-01477 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2025).
    Doc. 1 at 4. 3 Id. 4 Id. 1 action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969). 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) thus directs, in relevant part, that courts “shall dismiss [an in forma pauperis plaintif…
  • Davis, No. 2:25-cv-01887 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).
    Mandatory Screening Provisions “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” St…
  • Amalia Morin v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:25-cv-00414 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2025).
    However, “[t]here is no absolute right to proceed in court without paying a filing fee in civil matters”; rather, “it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees.” Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal…
  • Keithan T. Fedison, Tyrianna Fedison v. Orleans Par. Crim. Dist. Court, Et Al., No. 2:25-cv-00065 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2025).
    Mandatory Screening Provisions “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” St…
  • White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:25-cv-00649 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Bailey v. Bexar Cnty., No. 5:25-cv-00903 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2025).
    Tex. Oct. 28, 2014) (citing Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969)).
  • Collins v. Pickett, No. 2:25-cv-01742 (E.D. La. Sept. 2, 2025).
    Doc. 1 at 1, 5. 2 Id. at 1–5. 3 Id. at 4–5. 4 Id. at 5 . matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir.…
  • Lewis v. Seashore, No. 2:25-cv-01494 (E.D. La. July 23, 2025).
    Statutorily Mandated Review There exists no absolute right to proceed in forma pauperis in federal civil matters; instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when it is apparent that the claims do not lack merit…
  • Hewitt v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00371 (S.D. Miss. May 28, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Brady v. D.A. Intake, 24097633, No. 5:25-cv-00278 (W.D. Tex. May 8, 2025).
    Tex. Oct. 28, 2014) (citing Startti v. U.S., 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969)).
  • Harris v. Louisiana State, No. 2:25-cv-00729 (E.D. La. May 2, 2025).
    Jan. 18, 2013) (noting income includes social security payments), R.&R. adopted, 2013 WL 55065 (Feb. 12, 2013). 5 Prows, 842 F.2d at 140 . 6 See Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969); see also Adepegba v. Hammons, 1…
  • Cardenas v. Smith, No. 5:25-cv-00347 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2025).
    Tex. Oct. 28, 2014) (citing Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969)).
  • Salaverria v. Orange Cnty., No. 2:25-cv-00648 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2025).
    There exists no absolute right to proceed in forma pauperis in federal civil matters; instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when it is apparent that the claims do not lack merit on their face.7 Section 1915…
  • Holliday v. Goodell, No. 2:25-cv-00264 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2025).
    APPLICABLE LAW A. Statutorily Mandated Review There exists no absolute right to proceed in forma pauperis in federal civil matters; instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when it is apparent that the claims…
  • Faulk v. Overland Contracting Inc. a Black & Veatch Co., No. 8:25-cv-00063 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2025).
    Proceeding in forma pauperis “is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees” and is not an “absolute right.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969).2 After reviewing the affidavit to determine the econom…
  • Shaik v. Tokmedia Enter. LLC, No. 1:25-cv-20985 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Holliday v. Goodell, No. 2:25-cv-00264 (E.D. La. Mar. 6, 2025).
    Jan. 18, 2013) (noting income includes social security payments), R.&R. adopted, 2013 WL 55065 (Feb. 12, 2013). 5 Prows, 842 F.2d at 140 . 6 See Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969); see also Adepegba v. Hammons, 1…
  • Williams v. Lent, No. 5:24-cv-00079 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 3, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Hix v. McClellan, No. 8:25-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2025).
    Proceeding in forma pauperis “is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees” and is not an “absolute right.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969).1 After reviewing the affidavit to determine the econom…
  • Carr v. McCallister, No. 2:24-cv-02940 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Strausbaugh v. Terrebonne Par. Crim. Just. Complex Sheriff's Off., No. 2:24-cv-01213 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2025).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Lumpkin v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:24-cv-02858 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2025).
    The right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters is not absolute, however, but rather “a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115,…
  • Shaik v. Tokmedia Enter. LLC., No. 1:24-cv-24863 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2024).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Godfrey v. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, No. 2:24-cv-02449 (E.D. La. Nov. 29, 2024).
    Applicable Law “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United…
  • White v. Oak Street Health, No. 2:24-cv-02068 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2024).
    LAW AND ANALYSIS “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. Unite…
  • Johnson v. Young, No. 3:24-cv-00675 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 20, 2024).
    “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2…
  • Concepcion-padilla v. Long, No. 5:24-cv-00219 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2024).
    Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969).
  • Miller v. Neverson, No. 2:24-cv-02027 (E.D. La. Oct. 31, 2024).
    Law and Analysis “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. Unite…
  • Crum v. Florida Comm'n on Offender Review, No. 4:24-cv-00210 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2024).
    Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincente Gatica STARTTI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
27798_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 12, 1969.
Published opinion
415 F.2d 1115
1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820
Vincente Gatica Startti, pro se., Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Thornberry, Morgan, Carswell.
Cited by 129 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: W.D. Texas (1)
PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.

Appellant seeks reversal of a district court order denying permission to file his complaint in forma pauperis. We affirm.

Appellant, a Texas convict, had filed in the court below a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering prison authorities “to cease and desist” from the “cruel and unusual punishment with which he is being threatened.” The district court denied the petition. This Court granted a certificate of probable cause.

Appellant alleges that while that appeal was pending, he attempted to file in the court below a petition for a writ of coram nobis and injunctive relief against prison officials. The clerk of court returned the petition unfiled for the reason that the petition asked for the same relief as that sought in the matter then on appeal; thus the petition was returned as being moot.

Appellant thereafter sought to file in forma pauperis the complaint involved in this appeal demanding money damages from the United States “for wrongs done” by the clerk of the district court in his capacity as an employee of the United States. The court below denied leave to file in forma pauperis, stating that the complaint was “insubstantial and devoid of merit.”

There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It is left to the discretion of the court to which the application is made to determine whether the petition on its face is frivolous or lacking in merit. Irwin v. Burson, 5 Cir. 1968, 389 F.2d 63; Gomez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 245 F.2d 346. We perceive no abuse of this discretion on the part of the court below in refusing to allow appellant to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.