28 U.S.C. § 1916
Seamen’s suits
In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits and appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for their health or safety without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 196
cases (67 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Clay v. Overseas Carriers Corp., 61 F.R.D. 325 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
Clay v. Overseas Carriers Corp., 61 F.R.D. 325 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “” 18 The motion does not only request security for costs but prepayment by the plaintiff of the expenses of the defendants in deposing witnesses.”
Philip Rosati v. Dr. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2015). “§ 1291 ; we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.”
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “319 (1989), presented the question whether a complaint that fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is necessarily “frivolous” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1916 (d). Rejecting the argument that an affirmative answer to that question…”
Rogers v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 547 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2008). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1916 . As set out in the current U.”
Leonard Rogers v. Neil J. Bruntrager, Janet Fanetti, Brendan Ryan, Charles D. Kitchin, Philip Kramer, James L. Sanders, Henry Robertson, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1988). “1983) (per curiam) (pro se prisoner complaint may be dismissed if “frivolous or malicious” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (d)), the dismissal was not appealed and Rogers did not file an amended complaint.”
Chad Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 889 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2018). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (“In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits 18 BARNES V.”
Oliver v. Beard, 358 F. App'x 297 (3rd Cir. 2009). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (e)(2)(B)®. Oliver filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as well as a motion to amend his complaint.”
Howard v. U.S. [Corrected Coversheet], 230 F. App'x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Howard proffers vague assertions of violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (2006) and violations of the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Howard v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 676 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Apparently, plaintiff is referring to 28 U.S.C. § 1916 which allows seamen, without paying fees or costs, to file suits and appeals that concern their wages, salvage, or enforcement of laws regarding their health and safety, 28 U.”
Humberto Silva Araya v. Clayburne A. McLelland United States Marshal, 525 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1976). “Araya then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, claiming that 28 U.S.C.A. § 1916 , 2 exempting seamen from prepayment of “fees and costs” in an action for, inter alia, wages, precluded the marshal from demanding prepayment of attachment costs as a condition to attachment.”
Ronald A. Nurse v. Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, 618 F. App'x 987 (11th Cir. 2015). “Nurse leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but noted that because he was proceeding IFP, his initial complaint was subject to sua sponte review prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (e)(2). See D.E. 11. The magistrate judge ruled that Mr.”
Hamrick v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.D.C. 2011). “He argues that, as a seaman, he should be exempt from having to pay filing fees to pursue this litigation by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 , which permits seamen to “institute and prosecute suits and appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1916(d) — 1 case
Leonard Rogers v. Neil J. Bruntrager, Janet Fanetti, Brendan Ryan, Charles D. Kitchin, Philip Kramer, James L. Sanders, Henry Robertson, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1988). “1983) (per curiam) (pro se prisoner complaint may be dismissed if “frivolous or malicious” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (d)), the dismissal was not appealed and Rogers did not file an amended complaint.”
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.