indigent-litigants
10 cases — ← All topics
| Case | Title | Lower Court | Docketed | Status | Flags | Tags | Question Presented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25-5783 | Tanya Spurbeck v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. | Nevada | 2025-10-02 | Denied | Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP | disability-rights due-process federal-claims indigent-litigants legal-representation supremacy-clause | As of April 26, 2024, there is required federal funding, signed by the Nevada Attorney General, to promise required legal representation to indigent a… |
| 25-5474 | Jacob I. Severson v. Shabnum Gupta, et al. | North Dakota | 2025-08-27 | Denied | IFP | bodily-integrity due-process expert-affidavit fourteenth-amendment indigent-litigants medical-battery | 1. Whether a state 's application of an expert-affidavit requirement to dismiss a claim of extreme and obvious medical battery —where a doctor non-co… |
| 25-5291 | Consuelo Saldana, et al. v. William Campana | California | 2025-08-06 | Denied | Relisted (2)IFP | appellate-procedure civil-jury-trial constitutional-rights indigent-litigants seventh-amendment waiver-inference | 1. May California arbitrarily deny a civil jury trial to indigent litigants in violation of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article… |
| 22-6035 | Michael Andra Reed, aka Mychal Andra Reed v. California | California | 2022-11-10 | Denied | IFP | constitutional-challenge criminal-appeal criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection indigent-litigants indigent-rights pro-se pro-se-litigant time-bar time-limits | Does the state of California criminal appeal time limit (time bar) violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment equal protection clause pertaining t… |
| 22-5444 | Robert JW McCleland v. Rick Raemisch, et al. | Tenth Circuit | 2022-08-24 | Denied | IFP | expert-witness indigent-litigants judicial-notice medical-evidence medical-information pro-se pro-se-litigant rule-201 rule-706 undue-burden | Does requiring an expert witness to present medical information create an undue burden on the courts and unfairly prejudice pro se, indigent litigants… |
| 21-8235 | Joshua Dicks v. Natasha Davis | Arkansas | 2022-06-27 | Denied | Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP | attorney-diligence civil-procedure due-process fourteenth-amendment indigent-litigants parental-rights pro-se pro-se-litigant waiver-of-appeal | Whether the Arkansas Court's application of 'attorney diligence' waiver of right to appeal rules to pro se litigants in private termination of parenta… |
| 20-8163 | David Patkins v. Rebecca Piantini | California | 2021-05-27 | Dismissed | IFP | access-to-courts civil-rights constitutional-law constitutional-rights discretionary-review due-process indigent-litigants judicial-access meaningful-access non-article-iii-proceedings prisoner-rights | Whether the right of meaningful access to the courts authorizes certain courts to disregard indigent party requests for available court resources wher… |
| 20-6235 | Mario Montano v. Court of Appeals of Michigan | Michigan | 2020-11-05 | Denied | Response WaivedIFP | abuse-of-discretion access-to-courts court-sanctions due-process indigent-litigants indigent-rights judicial-abuse judicial-authority legal-merit procedural-fairness sanctions | Did the Michigan Supreme Court abuse its authority by sanctioning the indigent Petitioner $1000 payable to the Clerk of the Court that it knew he coul… |
| 19-857 | GPI Distributors, Inc. v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District | Ohio | 2020-01-09 | Denied | court-access due-process equal-protection indigent-litigants judicial-review property-rights property-takings | Do the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit states from imposing substantial financial burdens on indigent parties seeking judicial revie… | |
| 18-6998 | George Cleveland, III v. South Carolina | South Carolina | 2018-12-11 | Denied | IFP | access-to-courts bounds-v-smith civil-appeal civil-rights court-of-appeals direct-appeal docket-fee docket-fees due-process in-forma-pauperis indigent-litigant indigent-litigants pro-se-litigation south-carolina | Whether Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 97 S.Ct. 1491 (1977) requires the waiver of the docket fee in a civil on direct appeal to Indigent litigants who … |