United States v. Clarence Holiday, in Nos. 18709, 18711, William Holiday, Frank Simmons, Paul Simmons. Appeal of William Holiday, in Nos. 18710, 18712, 436 F.2d 1079 (3rd Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Clarence Holiday, in Nos. 18709, 18711, William Holiday, Frank Simmons, Paul Simmons. Appeal of William Holiday, in Nos. 18710, 18712, 436 F.2d 1079 (3rd Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: ARUANNO v. I.R.S. (njd, 2023-08-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ARUANNO v. I.R.S.
D.N.J. · 2023 · confidence medium
LEGAL STANDARD “It is clear that the granting of applications to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts.” United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) HOLBROOK v. MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY
D.N.J. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Tt is clear that the granting of [IFP applications] is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts.” United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lorna Kellam v.
3rd Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
First, the District Court has discretion to determine whether to grant IFP, see United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir.1971), and Kellam has made no argument that the District Court abused its discretion by determining that *86 she was not eligible to proceed IFP due to her finances, see Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080 , 1084 n. 5 (3d Cir.1995) (stating that leave to proceed IFP “is based on a showing of indigence”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terrance Matthews v. Suggs
3rd Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir.2003), and we review the District Court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gidget Mock v. Northampton Cty (2×)
3rd Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction under 28 § U.S.C. 1291, see Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir.2003), and we review the District Court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. Secretary HHS
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
In her notice of appeal she reiterated that she did not earn more than $400 during the *795 seventeen months between December 2005 and April 2007, and that she remains unemployed, has no assets, and has no other sources of income. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir.2003), and we review the District Court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodenbaugh v. Cararco
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir.2003), and review the District Court’s rulings for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed Cited "see" Jesse C. Lewis, Jr. v. Kadima Rehabilitation & Nursing at Latrobe
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)); Lewis v. Juniper Nursing, Civ.
discussed Cited "see" MCCRAY v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
W.D. Pa. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)); Lewis v. Juniper Nursing, Civ.
discussed Cited "see" STEPHENS v. NEIL R. STEPHENS PRINCIPLE
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)); Lewis v. Juniper Nursing, Civ.
discussed Cited "see" HAMPTON v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)); Lewis v. Juniper Nursing, Civ.
discussed Cited "see" LEWIS v. JUNIPER NURSING
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)).
cited Cited "see" Nina Shahin v. Secretary of State of Delaware
3rd Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir.1971) (granting of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Clarence HOLIDAY, Appellant in Nos. 18709, 18711, William Holiday, Frank Simmons, Paul Simmons. Appeal of William HOLIDAY, in Nos. 18710, 18712
18709-18712.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jan 15, 1971.
436 F.2d 1079
Clarence Holiday and William Holiday, pro se., W. Hunt Dumont, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Ganey, Adams, Weis.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial by Judge Augelli of the District Court of New Jersey of applications made by appellants Clarence and William Holiday to file petitions of habeas corpus in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915.

The record indicates that the applications were denied because it appeared that both defendants had access to sufficient funds to retain attorneys, although at the time of their applications they had not done so, and that in the judgment of the District Court, the Holidays were not qualified for the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis.

It is clear that the granting of applications to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts; e. g., Hartman v. United States, 310 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1962); Noll v. United States, 83 F.Supp. 887 (W.D.Pa.1949); cf. Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 896, 81 S.[*1080] Ct. 227, 5 L.Ed.2d 190 (1960). We have reviewed the record and find that the District Court acted reasonably and within the proper latitude of its discretion.

In addition we have considered the allegations raised in the habeas corpus petitions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the order of the District Court denying Clarence and William Holiday’s applications will be affirmed.