Document: 335 U.S. 331 69 S.Ct. 85 93 L.Ed. 43 ADKINSv.E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., Inc. No. 1. Argued on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Oct. 18, 1948. Decided Nov. 22, Mr. John W. Porter, Jr., of Muskogee, Okl., petitioner. G. C. Spillers, Tulsa, respondent. [Syllabus from page 332 intentionally omitted] Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The questions presented chiefly involve scope and application statute which authorizes a citizen prosecute or defend actions in federal courts 'without being required prepay fees costs printing record appellate court * upon filing said statement under oath writing, that because his poverty he is unable pay suit action such writ error appeal, give security same, *'.1 2 This was filed United States District Court Northern Oklahoma by P. V. Adkins. Adkins died while litigation pending wife having been appointed administratrix estate substituted as plaintiff. original complaint claimed overtime compensation, damages attorneys' behalf twelve other employees respondent2 'under pursuant Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (Title 29, U.S.C.A. Secs. 201—219) Executive Order #9240 amended 40 following Sec. 326 (note)) *.'3 3 From dismissal her denial motion set aside grant new trial, petitioner appeal Appeals Tenth Circuit. She also be allowed forma pauperis. Her affidavit support this stated widow 74 years age; estimated would approximately $4,000; all she had home, inherited husband, appraised at $3,450; only source income rent parts home; without not able purchase necessities life. No objection appears have pauperis, but denied court. Apparently two reasons: (1) could proceed pauperis where there were claimants involved who no affidavits poverty; (2) assumed petitioner's lawyers employed contingent fee basis, therefore unless either prepaid costs, gave an their along with claimants. 4 Petitioner then Appeals. denied. denial, so indicates, ground Mrs. Adkins, employees, members law firm representing make poverty. 5 went back Ten each appeared; '* my I am ($4,000) still provide myself dependents life.' An identical language one member firm's interest assigned affiant. firm. firm, however, stating belief claims meritorious, about $4,000, total liquid assets did exceed $2,000. One located refused sign 6 district judge second time permit costs. His grounds seem these. Two signed signed, appeal. petitioner, ten claimants, attorneys held insufficient they failed show precise financial condition affiants, 'whether property.' sure just what affiants property, felt should prove complete inability least portion All interested recovery, thought, including lawyers, 'have got chip extent ability pay; whatever have, put pot purpose taking appeal.' 'inclined believe sure' before permitted must mortgage home 'chip in' received loan. He construed showing more than it constitute hardship payment $4,000 record. 'hardship' thought meet statutory requirement secure due 'poverty.' Furthermore, designated needed decide question raised believed 'wholly unnecessary.' Since power directly limit contents record, 'persuaded technical strict' type required. 7 thereafter accept its applied certiorari review denying leave further asked here giving We down argument. 68 1340. matter has now submitted briefs oral are same below. 8 If these motion, urges we directions concerning additional requirements. While our purposes acceptable merely followed statute, rules provided But relate sufficiency And reach questions, important, sufficient delay final consideration case. affidavits, petition certiorari, case fully argued, pass far necessary. See Steffler v. States, 319 38, 63 948, 87 488. 9 First. do think protect public heavy incident inclusion unnecessary' matters Sections statutes may exercise limited judicial discretion right held. Kinney Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 43, 45, 35 236, 237, 238, 59 457. Rule 75(m) present Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., reads follows: 10 'APPEALS IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Upon order specify some different economical manner prepared settled, end appellant enabled court.' (329 870.) 11 know few appropriate occasions use court's litigant, asking litigation, carelessly wilfully stubbornly endeavors saddle wholly uncalled-for expense. So here, ws if wrongfully persisted masses plainly irrelevant issues Estabrook King, Cir., 119 F.2d 607, 610. And, course, save providing typewritten result unfair incomplete litigant's injury, remedied. Its subject Moreover, obedience party agree inadequate purposes, power, sua sponte, require addition material necessary enable fairly presented.4 12 Second. allowing appeals provides incorporation affidavit. makes exposes himself 'to pains perjury bad faith'. Pothier Rodman, 261 307, 309, 374, 375, 67 670. constitutes sanction important protection against false fraudulent invocation statute's benefits. sanctions affidavits. Section dismiss brought 'if made appear allegation untrue'. § another safeguard loss Government permitted, discretion, render judgment 'at conclusion cases'. Consequently, written ordinarily accepted, trial particularly unquestioned does perceive flagrant misrepresentation. 13 Here, couched statute. They outside language. Estimating affiant $4,000. words, tied fixed cost Under circumstances, justified looking see really not, requiring appreciation lesser amount expense might subjected 14 Third. cannot below absolutely destitute enjoy benefit states 'pay provide' 'with To say persons entitled benefits until sworn contribute last dollar can get, thus themselves destitute, construe way throw beneficiaries into category charges. profited relieved paying particular imposed supporting person thereby object support. Nor desirable effect interpretation force litigant abandon meritorious claim spare destitution. construction achieving consequences inadmissible one. cases collected A.L.R. 1281—1287 discussion whether destitution similar statutes. 15 Fourth. will neither nor illustrates restrictive deprive several litigants even though impossible him Such deprivation frustrate basic mean financially unwilling proportionate part demand perfected claimant making poverty, decided regard paid secured fair 16 Fifth. Petitioner's attorneys, shown satisfaction account imposes burden lawyer share recovery through contract reason legal services. aware circuit Act,5 adopted impose lawyers.6 Other declined interpret imposing represent too poor costs.7 17 Many states, apparently tried,8 illegal bond clients any civil criminal action. It innovation Congress expressly trying clients' cases. surprising legislative command That seems strongly indicated itself. 18 intended guarantee shall opportunity commence, prosecute, action, criminal, 'in States' solely Not content courts, 'the request attorney person, deems cause worthy *.' Certainly kind cast counsel reasonable court, state laws provided.9 Yet, 'reasonable fee' 'contingent respondent's argument For respondent contends fix prosecuting basis. according recovery. argues, them, 19 proof imposition onerous burdens employees' serious obstacles obtaining representation them Act. since assure poor, obvious frustrated construing suit, sometimes very small amount, how imagined possibly except obtains?10 20 susceptible those employ year straight noncontingent fees. specifically processes, attendance witnesses, remedies pointed out, abundantly clear represented fortunate circumstances. urged restricting opportunities getting follow courts. Clark D.C., 57 214, 216: compels avail beneficent hire counsel. procure agreeing out proceeds case, proceeds, compensated. practical (a litigant) file penniless. compelled paupers them.' 21 deny satisfactory requires 22 What unnecessary us contention agreement payable employee's invalid. 23 orders vacated remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 Vacated remanded. 27 Stat. 252, amended, 36 866, 42 666, U.S.C. 832, 832. substance §§ incorporated (a) (e) 1915, 1915(a e). 16(b) Act, 52 1069, 29 216(b), authorized suits agents. Here agent acting 'for recovery.' amendment section, Portal-to-Portal 61 84, U.S.C.Supp. I, 251—252, 251, circumstances representative maintained. 9240, Fed.Reg. 7159 (1942), 7419 (1942). indicate sought properly nothing adequate. dismissed deprived jurisdiction supra. purports enforce wages based activity compensable '(1) express provision nonwritten custom practice effect, activity,' place employment, governing employment. contended examination entire evidence already taken special master compensation supported contracts custom. inapplicable facts consequently erroneous. amend conform Cf. Maty Grasselli Chemical 303 197, 200, 201, 58 507, 509, 82 745; Hoiness 297, 70. raised. ex rel. Randolph Ross, 298 F. 64, 33 728; Bolt Reynolds Metal F.Supp. 58; Esquibel Atchison, T. S.F.R. 206 863; Feil Wabash R. C.C., 490; Phillips Louisville N.R. 153 795; Bella, 91 540, 543; Boyle Great 539; Silvas Arizona Copper 213 504, 508. 26(1), Third Circuit; 18(2), Sixth Chetkovich 47 894, Deadrich 318. Quittner Picture Producers Distributors America, 70 331; Payne Call, 287 520; Jacobs North Louisiana Gulf 5; 214; Evans Stivers Lumber F.R.D. 548. Okla.Stat. tit. 5, (1941). Watkins Sedberry, 571, 576, 411, 412, 802; Peck Heurich, 167 624, 630, 927, 929, 302. see, Radin, Contingent Fees California, Calif.L.Rev. 587, 589, 598 (1940). Board Com'rs Clay County McGregor, 171 Ind. 634, N.E. 1, Ann.Cas. 333; Dane Smith, Wis. 585, 80 Am.Dec. 754; Ryce Mitchell County, 65 Iowa 447, N.W. 771; State Hudson, 55 R.I. 141, 143, 179 A. 130, 131, 100 313. supra p. 589; 520, 522; 216.

Category: 1