Case Name: Minerva B. FUTCH and Clebert Mouton, Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Ida B. COUMES et al., Defendants-Respondents
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-07-01
Citations: 347 So. 2d 1121
Docket Number: No. 58963
Parties: Minerva B. FUTCH and Clebert Mouton, Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Ida B. COUMES et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: MARCUS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 1121–1127

Head Matter:
Minerva B. FUTCH and Clebert Mouton, Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Ida B. COUMES et al., Defendants-Respondents.
No. 58963.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 1, 1977.
J. Minos Simon, Ltd., J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, for plaintiffs-relators.

Opinion:
TATE, Justice.
We granted certiorari, 341 So.2d 413 (La. 1977), to review the refusal of the district court to consider the application of the plaintiff-relators to proceed in forma pau-peris, as well as to determine the validity of the local court rule upon which the district judge based his refusal.
The plaintiffs, domiciled in Lafayette Parish, filed this tort suit to recover for personal injuries. They attached to their petition affidavits of their poverty, furnished by themselves and a third person, in support of their allegation that they were entitled to prosecute the action without prepayment of costs or furnishing bond therefor, as authorized by La.C.Civ.P. arts. 5181-85.
The district judge refused to consider the requested order to permit the litigants to proceed in forma pauperis. It did so, in reliance upon Rule 20 of its local rules.
Insofar as pertinent, Rule 20 requires an applicant who desires to proceed in forma pauperis, together with his attorney and his third person affiant, to appear personally before the clerk of court to execute the affidavits. The rule also provides that the clerk shall then inquire into the litigant's financial status and shall sign an order permitting the litigant to proceed as a pauper, if the clerk is satisfied that the litigant is entitled to do so.
We granted certiorari primarily because we felt that the local court rule might be in conflict with legislative provisions regulating the institution of pauper suits. Courts may not adopt rules "contrary to the rules provided by law." La.C.Civ.P. art. 193. (Italics ours.)
We have concluded that local Rule 20 conflicts with the statutory procedure provided by Article 5183 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, by which the legislature provided the procedure by which a litigant may exercise the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis.
The conflict results from the rule's requirement that the litigant and his affiant appear in person at the clerk's office to execute the affidavits statutorily entitling him to exercise the privilege granted by La.C.Civ.P. arts. 5181 et seq. Further, as administered, the rule requires these persons to be subject to interrogation by a deputy clerk (a non-judicial officer) concerning the litigant's lack of means.
The statutory procedure provided by Article 5183 contemplates that a party may secure the privilege upon presenting an ex parte written motion to which are attached affidavits showing that the party is entitled to exercise the privilege. The statutory procedure does not involve a personal appearance at the courthouse. The simple statutory procedure provided is designed to assure efficient and non-technical exercise of the privilege by those entitled to it.
To the contrary, by requiring personal appearance at the courthouse, Rule 20 routinely requires the litigant and his affiant to participate personally at a quasi-judicial "hearing", not authorized by law, at which they are formally interrogated (contrary to statute ) by a non-judicial officer. Apparently, the litigant is required to appear in person, no matter how clear is his right to exercise the privilege, and no matter how distant from the courthouse does he reside.
The statutory purpose and procedure is contravened by converting an ex parte written motion and affidavit procedure into an inquisitorial mini-hearing routinely required in all cases'. One could well argue that a result of the rule is to inhibit access to the privilege by those entitled by law to exercise it, as well as to those not so entitled.
The statutory protections against abuse of the privilege are as follows:
(1) "When the application and supporting affidavits are presented to the court, it shall inquire into the facts" to satisfy itself of the litigant's entitlement. La.C.Civ.P. art. 5183. The statutory procedure designated is presentation to the court of a written motion and affidavits; no personal appearance by the litigant is required. However, the court may inquire into the facts at the time the motion is presented to him, either of the applicant's attorney or (presumably) through a questionnaire required of the litigant; and, if then not satisfied, the court may deny the privilege sought by the applicant.
(2) The only personal appearance contemplated as required of a litigant to maintain his exercise of the privilege is that provided by La.C.Civ.P. art. 5184. If the opposing party desires to traverse the facts alleged in the litigant's affidavits, he may provoke a rule to show cause. To require a litigant routinely to appear personally at a mini-hearing at the courthouse, before being permitted to exercise his statutory privilege, is inconsistent with this statutory scheme.
We therefore hold that Rule 20, to the extent noted, is invalid because it is in conflict with the procedures provided by statute to permit persons with lack of sufficient means to proceed in forma pauperis. La.C.Civ.P. arts. 5181-85. Further, insofar (as administered) the rule permits the clerk of court to deny a litigant the privilege to proceed in forma pauperis, it is in conflict with La.Civ.P. art. 283(4), which confers upon the clerk the power to grant (but not to deny) such applications.
Nevertheless, we expressly note that, by so holding, we do not intend to invalidate the local court rule, insofar as by it the district court has merely delegated to the clerk of court any administrative duty with regard to processing applications to proceed without prepayment of costs.
Rule 20's requirement that the application be initially presented to the clerk rather than to a judge, for instance, does not by itself invalidate the rule. Nor is the rule invalidated simply by its requirement that the clerk make the preliminary determination of whether to grant the application, La.C.Civ.P. art. 283(4), on the basis of that official's inquiry into the litigant's financial ability (see footnote 5 above) — providing that the inquiry is on the basis of the affidavits, inquiry personally (or by telephone) of the litigant's attorney, or even possibly by examination of a reasonable questionnaire (if required by a court rule), instead of on the basis of mandatory personal appearance for a mini-hearing at the courthouse routinely required of all litigants contrary to the statutes establishing the procedures by which poor litigants are permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
Rule 20 as presently drafted, however, is invalid for the reasons stated. Therefore, in accordance with their prayer, the plaintiffs-relators are entitled to the order, hereby granted, that the respondent judge consider and act immediately upon their application to proceed in forma pauperis, in accordance with the principles and holding set forth in our opinion.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ORDERED TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAU-PERIS.
MARCUS, J., concurs.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.
.Rule 20 of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court provides:
"Before any judicial proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted or defended pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 5181, et seq. (Waiver of Costs for Indigent Party), the applicant, his attorney and the affi-ant attesting to the applicant's inability to pay the costs of court, shall appear before the Clerk of Court to execute the required affidavits. The Clerk shall inquire as to the financial ability of the litigant and shall obtain litigant's affidavit of financial status. If the Clerk is satisfied that the party is entitled to proceed without the payment of costs, he shall sign an order permitting the party to proceed in forma pauperis."
. The showings made in the record indicate that the rule is administered by the clerk's office as follows: A deputy clerk, who is not necessarily the chief deputy, interrogates the litigant, requiring answers to a two-page questionnaire. Thereafter, outside of the presence of the litigant and his attorney, the deputy consults the clerk in the latter's personal chambers, who then either permits or denies the application to proceed in forma pauperis.
. The definitions section of the code provides, La.C.Civ.P. art. 5251(9):
" 'Law' as used in the phrases 'unless otherwise provided by law' or 'except as otherwise provided by law' means an applicable provision of the constitution, a code, or a statute of Louisiana."
. La.C.Civ.P. art. 5183 provides:
"A person who wishes to exercise the privilege granted in this Chapter shall apply to the court for permission to do so in his first pleading, or in an ex parte written motion if requested later, to which he shall annex:
"(1) His affidavit that he is unable to pay the costs of court in advance, or as they accrue, or to furnish security therefor, because of his poverty and lack of means; and
"(2) The affidavit of a third person other than his attorney that he knows the applicant, knows his financial condition, and believes that he is unable to pay the costs of court in advance, or as they accrue, or to furnish security therefor.
"When the application and supporting affidavits are presented to the court, it shall inquire into the facts, and if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the privilege granted in this Chapter, it shall render an order permitting the applicant to litigate, or to continue the litigation of, the action or proceeding without paying the costs in advance, or as they accrue, or furnishing security therefor."
. If the application is presented to the clerk, La.C.Civ.P. art, 283(4), he may before granting it make the same examination as may the judge. Presumably, the chief deputy clerk may also do so, La.C.Civ.P. art. 286; but this latter code article specifically prohibits exercise of the clerk's power by any other deputy clerk: " No deputy clerk of a district court, except the chief deputy clerk, may exercise any of the powers and authority granted the clerk of the court under Articles 282 and 283. • >>
. Neither the respondent clerk nor the opposing party has made any appearance in this court to oppose the applicant's proceeding in forma pauperis. From this we infer that the respected clerk of court recognizes that his public office, constitutionally created to serve litigants, is not properly concerned with contesting the privilege of a litigant entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, insofar as the grant or denial of the right means less or more revenues for his office.