OMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS BY INMATES A. Petitions, motions, or other pleadings filed by an inmate as defined in paragraph 2 of subsection B of Section 566 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes appearing pro se shall be on forms approved by the district court and supplied without charge by the clerk of the district court upon request.
B. The following information shall be supplied by an inmate who is seeking relief in a civil action: 1. Plaintiff’s full name; 2. Place of plaintiff’s residence; 3. Name(s) of defendant(s); 4. Place(s) of defendant(s) employment; 5. Title and position of (each) defendant; 6. Whether the defendant(s) was (were) acting under color of state law at the time the claim alleged in the complaint arose; 7. Brief statement of the facts; 8. Grounds upon which plaintiff bases allegations that constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have been violated, together with the facts which support each of these grounds; 9. A statement of prior judicial and administrative relief sought, copies of which shall be attached to the petition; 10. A statement of the relief requested; and 11. A complete list, supported by affidavit under penalty of perjury, of all lawsuits filed by the inmate as an inmate in the previous ten (10) years in state and federal courts and the disposition of each case. C. In all cases in which the petitioner, movant, or plaintiff is an inmate of a penal institution and desires to proceed in forma pauperis, the proof of poverty required by the Oklahoma Statutes shall be submitted. D. If the court determines that the filing is a noncomplying petition, motion, or other pleading filed by an inmate in a penal institution appearing pro se, the action may not proceed, and it shall be returned together with a copy of this statute and a statement of the reason or reasons for its return. If the court determines that the inmate-plaintiff knowingly and willfully failed to comply with all the requirements of this section, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice. E. If the defendant claims either qualified or absolute immunity in its answer, the court may order the plaintiff to file a detailed reply to the answer pursuant to subsection A of Section 2007 of this title. F. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall adopt forms to be used by inmates of penal institutions appearing pro se pursuant to this section. Added by Laws 1995, c. 141, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 402, § 6, eff. July 1, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 168, § 4, emerg. eff. April 27, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cotner v. Golden, 2006 OK 25 (Okla. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Judicial review of a final order pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2004 § 2003.1 that adjudicates informa pauperis status is by an appeal to this Court.”
Mehdipour v. Wise, 2003 OK 3 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 2× “948 , where this Court had addressed the meaning of the predecessor statute to Section 65, and also relied on the provisions of 12 O.S.2001 § 2003.1, requiring an inmate commencing “a civil action” to supply certain general information including specifying grounds and facts…”
Gamble v. Calbone, 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2004).
“In addition, the legislature passed Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1 (C). That statute provided that all inmates desiring to proceed in forma pauperis had to submit certificates stating the amount of money on deposit to the inmate’s credit “in any account in the institution,” and…”
Smith v. Moore, 2002 OK 49 (Okla. 2002).
“After Foust was handed down the legislature enacted 12 O.S.2001, § 2003.1(C) 4 , which provides that leave to proceed as a pauper may be denied if the value of the money and securities in a prison.”
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999).
“1995, § 152 and 12 O.S.Supp.1995, § 2003.1(C); 2) he must demonstrate to the Court that his action is commenced in good faith and not malicious or without arguable merit; 3) his pleadings must be signed as required by 12 O.”
Dopp v. Kirkendall, 2021 OK 52 (Okla. 2021).
· cites it 2× “, "may not proceed," found in 12 O.S. 2011, § 2003.1, does not preclude a challenge of a final order determining a prisoner's filing does not comply with that section's requirements.”
Mahorney v. Moore, 2002 OK 39 (Okla. 2002).
“NOTES [1] Title 12 O.S.2001, § 2003.1(D) provides: "In all cases in which the petitioner, movant, or plaintiff is an inmate of a penal institution and desires to proceed in forma pauperis, in addition to the proof of poverty required by subsection C of Section 152 of Title 28 of…”
Thomas v. Rios, 548 F. App'x 508 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1 (D) Okla. Stat.”
Ciempa v. Standifird, 446 F. App'x 95 (10th Cir. 2011).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1 . A petitioner’s failure to comply with state law filing requirements doesn’t constitute cause for a procedural default.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1(B) — 1 case
Dopp v. Kirkendall, 2021 OK 52 (Okla. 2021).
“, "may not proceed," found in 12 O.S. 2011, § 2003.1, does not preclude a challenge of a final order determining a prisoner's filing does not comply with that section's requirements.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1(C) — 2 cases
Smith v. Moore, 2002 OK 49 (Okla. 2002).
“After Foust was handed down the legislature enacted 12 O.S.2001, § 2003.1(C) 4 , which provides that leave to proceed as a pauper may be denied if the value of the money and securities in a prison.”
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999).
“1995, § 152 and 12 O.S.Supp.1995, § 2003.1(C); 2) he must demonstrate to the Court that his action is commenced in good faith and not malicious or without arguable merit; 3) his pleadings must be signed as required by 12 O.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2003.1(D) — 2 cases
Cotner v. Golden, 2006 OK 25 (Okla. 2006).
“Judicial review of a final order pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2004 § 2003.1 that adjudicates informa pauperis status is by an appeal to this Court.”
Mahorney v. Moore, 2002 OK 39 (Okla. 2002).
“NOTES [1] Title 12 O.S.2001, § 2003.1(D) provides: "In all cases in which the petitioner, movant, or plaintiff is an inmate of a penal institution and desires to proceed in forma pauperis, in addition to the proof of poverty required by subsection C of Section 152 of Title 28 of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.