United States of Am. Ex Rel. Henry Arthur Foreman v. State of New Jersey, 449 F.2d 1298 (3rd Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Henry Arthur Foreman v. State of New Jersey, 449 F.2d 1298 (3rd Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1981 · …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. at p. 1298 ⚠ not in text
10 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Evans v. Croom (ca4, 1981-06-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Croom
4th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
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.” In re Stump, supra, 449 F.2d at 1298; Carter v. Telectron, Inc., supra, 452 F.Supp. at 942. 12 But in order for withdrawals from that account to be a basis for denial of indigent status, the district court must be able to say either from the nature or timing of the withdrawal, or both, or from other specific circumstances, that the…
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
4th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
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." In re Stump, supra, 449 F.2d at 1298; Carter v. Telectron, Inc., supra, 452 F.Supp. at 942. 12 But in order for withdrawals from that account to be a basis for denial of indigent status, the district court must be able to say either from the nature or timing of the withdrawal, or both, or from other specific circumstances, that the pur…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Henry Arthur FOREMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY Respondent
18167_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 6, 1971.
449 F.2d 1298
Henry Arthur Foreman, pro se., Jerome Jay Cohen, Asst. Prosecutor, Rudolph J. Rossetti, Camden, N. J. (A. Donald Bigley, Camden County Prosecutor, Camden, N. J., on the brief), for respondent.
Van Dusen, Aldisert, Gibbons.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Whether this be considered an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus or of a request for relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, we will not disturb the judgment of the district court.

Treating certain informal filings of appellant as an application for a certificate of probable cause, this court denied the request by order of August 15, 1969, and limited the proceedings to one in the nature of a Civil Rights action. So construed, appellant is entitled to no relief, it being consistently held that a state is not a “person” subject to suit within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. Philadelphia, 413 F.2d 84, 86 (3rd Cir. 1969); Fear v. Commonwealth, 413 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 278, 24 L.Ed.2d 234 (1969).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.