Okla. Stat. » Title 57 — PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 565 (2026)

Affidavit in forma pauperis - Considering inmates

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

deposited funds. In determining whether or not an inmate shall be allowed to use an affidavit in forma pauperis, the court shall consider the amount of funds an inmate has on deposit with the Department of Corrections. Added by Laws 1985, c. 57, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1985.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2004 · leading case: Foust v. Pearman, 850 P.2d 1047 (Okla. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foust v. Pearman, 850 P.2d 1047 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “57 O.S.1991 § 565. In the case before us the judge clearly had the authority to inquire into the petitioner’s use of a pauper’s affidavit and the amount of his funds on deposit with the Department of Corrections.”
Gamble v. Calbone, 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2004). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 565 . The legislature also concurrently amended section 549 to specifically provide an inmate the right to use mandatory savings during incarceration to pay “for any fees or court costs incurred by an inmate filing any civil action.”
Smith v. Moore, 2002 OK 49, 50 P.3d 215. “2001, § 152(E) 2 and 57 O.S.2001, § 565 3 give the courts discretion to require partial payment of the fee.”
Mahorney v. Moore, 2002 OK 39, 50 P.3d 1128. · cites it 3× “1991 § 152 [1] which allows the trial court to waive fees if a person is unable to pay, and 57 O.S.1991 § 565 [2] which allows the trial court to consider the amount of funds an inmate has on deposit with the Department of Corrections.”
Williams v. Austin, 890 P.2d 416 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “57 O.S.1991, § 565 provides: In determining whether or not an inmate shall be allowed to use an affidavit in forma pauper-is, the court shall consider the amount of funds an inmate has on deposit with the Department of Corrections.”
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.