green
Positive treatment
22.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…put his money where his mouth is,' it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.
at p. 1298
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · 2 courts ·
…to put his money where his mouth is,
at p. 1298
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. Brown University Health
In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lipscomb v. State of Rhode Island
Sept. 16, 2015), this Court noted that a plaintiff seeking IFP status will be required to “‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” Citing In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diane K. v. Kijakazi
Nevertheless, the First Circuit has bluntly emphasized that even a plaintiff of small means should be asked to “‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
V. James F. v. Kijakazi
However, the First Circuit has also bluntly emphasized that even a plaintiff of small means should be asked to “‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peter v. Wojcicki
Sept. 16, 2015), this Court noted that a Plaintiff seeking IFP status will be required to “‘put his -2- money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” Citing In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Youngblood v. Esquerra
“If an applicant has the wherewithal to 12 pay court costs, or some part thereof, without depriving himself and his dependents (if any there 13 be) of the necessities of life, then he should be required, in the First Circuit’s phrase, to ‘put his 14 money where his mouth is.’” Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district 15 court denial of in forma pauperis where in past 12 months, plaintiff received a sum of $5,000 16 settling a civil action and no indication it was unavailable to plaintiff) (citing, Temple, 586 17 F.Supp. at 851 (quoting In re Stump, 449 F.2d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC)Evans v. Sherman
However, “[i]f an applicant has the wherewithal to 5 pay court costs, or some part thereof, without depriving himself and his dependents (if any there be) 6 of the necessities of life, then he should be required, in the First Circuit’s phrase, to ‘put his money 7 where his mouth is.’” Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court denial 8 of in forma pauperis where in past 12 months, plaintiff received a sum of $5,000 settling a civil 9 action and no indication it was unavailable to plaintiff) (citing, Temple, 586 F.Supp. at 851(quoting 10 In re Stump, 449…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maus v. Baker
See also Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 993 (7th Cir.1980) (per curiam); In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1297-98 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Underwood v. Appeals Court
See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (requiring plaintiff of small financial means to pay partial filing fee was reasonable where it is “all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stack v. Stewart
See e.g., Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir.1995); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna, 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir.1992); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989); Sellers v. United States, 881 F.2d 1061, 1062 (11th Cir.1989); Lumbert v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 827 F.2d 257, 259-60 (7th Cir.1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir.1986); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1983); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1983); Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521, 525 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1153 (1982); In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cleveland v. Wilken
The court noted that: “[w]hile it is neither unjust nor unreasonable to expect a suitor ‘to put his money where his mouth is,’ cf. In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam), toll-booths cannot be placed across the courthouse doors in a haphazard fashion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simulnet East Associates v. Ramada Hotel Operating Company
While it is neither unjust nor unreasonable to expect a suitor "to put his money where his mouth is," cf. In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam), toll-booths cannot be placed across the courthouse doors in a haphazard fashion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simulnet East Associates v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co.
While it is neither unjust nor unreasonable to expect a suitor “to put his money where his mouth is,” cf. In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam), toll-booths cannot be placed across the courthouse doors in a haphazard fashion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stehouwer v. Hennessey
See Butler v. Leen, 4 F.3d 772, 773 (9th Cir.1993); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna, 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir.1992); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Gir.1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-11 (8th Cir.1986); Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1983); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1983); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1983); Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 , 522-23 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1023 , 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982); In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Murphy v. Jones
In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971); Dreyer v. Jalet, 349 F.Supp. 452, 460 (S.D.Tex.1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Weaver Leo McKaye Morris Martin v. Raymond Toombs Robert Brown, Jr. Donald Mason Robert Mulvaney Ted Strassburg
(2×)
This holding was addressed to the district court's order on appeal which had assessed costs against a prisoner-litigant. 39 Other courts have held that in determining whether to grant indigent status to a prisoner-plaintiff, the district court may "inquire whether, if a prisoner has no cash credit at the moment of filing, he had disabled himself by a recent drawing on his account and if so, for what purposes." Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521, 525 (4th Cir.1981) (quoting In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1023 , 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Lawrence Epps
See Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1983); In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deep Aggarwal v. Ponce School of Medicine
And just as factors such as the absence of attachable property within the district or the conduct of the parties may bear on a defendant’s legitimate need for the prophylaxsis of a bond, so too, a plaintiff’s ability to post surety for costs must weigh in the balance when the third figure of the equation is tabulated. 3 While it is neither unjust nor unreasonable to expect a suitor “to put his money where his mouth is,” cf. In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam), toll-booths cannot be placed across the courthouse doors in a haphazard fashion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Temple v. Ellerthorpe
In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry Larry Collier v. Sergeant Tatum, Officer
Other courts have held that in determining whether to grant indigent status to a prisoner-plaintiff, the district court may “inquire whether, if a prisoner has no cash credit at the moment of filing, he had disabled himself by a recent drawing on his account and if so, for what purposes.” Evan's v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521, 525 (4th Cir.1981) (quoting In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1023 , 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William F. McQuade and Wilma N. McQuade
It was within the court’s discretion to make a factual inquiry, see In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971); Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 504, 505 (10th Cir. 1969); and to deny the motion when the appellants were unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
George Reynolds Evans, Sr. v. Carlton Croom, Dallas Mercer, Sgt. Peppin, Victor Foust v. N. C. Department of Correction, Hospital at Central Prison, Mr. Leigh F. Wheeler, Supt. Of Md., Kenneth M. Webb v. Lt. W. E. Pope, Sgt. C. J. MacLeod Officer S. Ray, Officer C. Bagley, Lt. Norwood, Bennie Lee Linder v. S. A. Berry, R. G. West, R. E. Green, J. M. Temple, R. T. Brooks, D. Harris, D. Johnson, Robert Lee Thacker v. Samuel P. Garrison and Chris Morgan
The orders were all issued by the Clerk and in each instance the prisoner-plaintiff had apparently claimed no funds in his prison trust account 2 Carey v. Settle, 351 F.2d 483, 484 (8th Cir. 1965) 3 In the early case of O'Connell v. Mason, 132 F. 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1904), this point was emphasized: "It is quite clear that Congress, while intending to extend to poor and meritorious suitors the privilege of having their wrongs redressed without the ordinary burdens of litigation, at the same time intended to safeguard members of the public against an abuse of the privilege by evil-minded persons…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Wyrick
Although he decided to deceive this Court as to his true financial status, petitioner clearly should have been able to pay the filing fee of $5.00 required to institute this action. “[A] plaintiff, even though of small means, could reasonably be asked to some small degree to ‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stroble v. Oswald
The filing fee requires a plaintiff “to some small degree to ‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roller v. Gunn
(2×)
See In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir. 1989); Bullock v. Suolmela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir. 1983); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir. 1983); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna , 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir. 1992); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir. 1986); Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995); Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roller v. Gunn
See In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1983); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1983); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna, 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir.1992); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir.1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir.1986); Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir.1995); Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1983). 26 As meritless as his filing fee contention is Roller's claim that he is denied access to the courts by the PLRA provis…
discussed
Cited "see"
Olivares v. Marshall
See, In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1983); Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521, 522-25 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1023 , 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1983); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna, 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir.1992); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir.1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir.1986); and Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Steve Olivares v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden, J. Hixon and D. Helsel, James F. Stehouwer v. Michael Hennessey, Sheriff Sergeant Nelson Deputy Gee Deputy Antram Deputy Williams and Internal Affairs
See, In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir.1971); In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1983); Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521, 522-25 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 , 102 S.Ct. 1023 , 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982); Smith v. Martinez, 706 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1983); Clark v. Ocean Brand Tuna, 974 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir.1992); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir.1987); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir.1986); and Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir.1983). 7 II.
cited
Cited "see"
Clark v. Brandom
Carey v. Settle, 351 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1965); Rhodes v. Houston, 258 F.Supp. 546 (D.Neb.1966), aff’d 418 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1969); See In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297 (1st Cir. 1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re James P. STUMP, Petitioner
509_1.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Oct 29, 1971.
James P. Stump, pro se, on motion and brief in support thereof., Courtland D. Perry, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief in opposition to motion.
Aldrich, McEntee, Coffin.
Cited by 48 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Although the amount of money involved in this case is small, the principle is not, but is of some general importance.
Petitioner appellant, a state prisoner, formerly at large on parole, had his parole revoked under procedures that he alleges were unconstitutional. In the light of present judicial concern over parole practices generally we are not prepared to say that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint which he sought to file in the district court is frivolous on its face. Nor did the district court. That court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), on the ground that he had sufficient means, thereby requiring him to pay the $15 filing fee. Petitioner admits to having a cash credit with the warden of $78.00. He lists no outstanding debts. The war[*1298] den has certified that his credit is $218. Rather than pay the fee, petitioner brings this petition for mandamus, seeking an order recognizing his right to proceed in forma pauperis.
We have previously, in other connections, held that a plaintiff, even though of small means, could reasonably be asked to some small degree to “put his money where his mouth is,” it being all too easy to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so. We are not prepared to say that the district court’s requirement in this case was such an abuse of discretion as would call for mandamus on our part.
Nor would we say that the court may not inquire whether, if a prisoner has no cash credit at the moment of filing, he had disabled himself by a recent drawing on his account, and if so, for what purposes.
The petition is dismissed. This ruling is without prejudice to a renewed request in the district court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order to meet some larger described expense subsequently faced. Cf. Green v. Cotton Concentration Co., S.D.Tex., 1968, 294 F.Supp. 34.