Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. William F. McQuade and Wilma N. McQuade
647 F.2d 938
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1981-06-08
- Topic
- general
stating that it is “within the court’s discretion to make a factual inquiry” into a claim of poverty | stating that the affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” | stating that the court may deny an application if the applicant is “unable, or unwilling, to verify” his poverty | stating that the court may deny an application if the applicant is “unable, or willing to verify” his poverty | stating that, when a claim of poverty is made, the affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” | stating that the affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” | stating that the affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” | stating that, when a claim of poverty is made, the affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” | stating that the affidavit must “state the facts as to 2 On January 28, March 6, and March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application” | instructing 15 that facts concerning the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, 16 definiteness, and certainty” | affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty 8 with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s 3 || poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | a § 1915 affidavit must state facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” as to indigency (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) | a § 1915 affidavit must state facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” as to indigency (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) | a § 1915 affidavit must state facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” as to indigency (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) | The affidavit 8 must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” | The affidavit 6 must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” | affidavit under in forma pauperis statute must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness|,] and certainty.” (internal quotation omitted) | affidavit must “state the facts as to 2 affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | affidavit must 3 || “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal 4 || quotation omitted) | affidavit must “state the facts as to 3 affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s 3 || poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty 7 with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted) | an adequate 19 affidavit should state supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and 20 certainty” | “It [is] within the court's discretion to make a factual inquiry and to 6 deny the motion when [plaintiffs are] unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.” | an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and 9 certainty” | an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and 9 certainty” | an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant f
Citator
- Cited by
- 552 opinions
Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, App. Tax. Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
[2] These arguments are without merit. The constitutional right to a state financed defense arises because of "the crucial right of an indigent to reasonably fair equality with those who have adequate financial means to protect their rights,"United Statesv. Hartfield,513 F.2d 254, 258 (9th Cir. 1975). A person who can afford to retain counsel has no constitutional right to have counsel appointed. Nor does the fourth amendment protect an individual from complying with a demand for information for a lawful purpose merely because "his responses might prove embarrassing or result in an unwelcome disclosure of his personal affairs."United States v. Calandra,414 U.S. 338, 353, 94 S.Ct. 613, 622, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974);see also Oklahoma PressPublishing Co. v. Walling,327 U.S. 186, 195, 66 S.Ct. 494, 498, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946);Paine v. McCarthy,527 F.2d 173, 177 (9th Cir. 1975);United States v. Theep,502 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 1974);United States v. Weinberg,439 F.2d 743, 748-49 (9th Cir. 1971).
[3] Motions for appointment of counsel under section 1915 are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.United States v.McQuade,579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978). When a claim of poverty is made under section 1915 "it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty."Jefferson v. United States,277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). It was within the court's discretion to make a factual inquiry,see In re Stump,449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971);Bethea v. Crouse,417 F.2d 504, 505 (10th Cir. 1969); and to deny the motion when the appellants were unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.Jefferson v. United States,277 F.2d at 725;cf. United States v. Kaufman,452 F.2d 1202, 1202 (4th Cir. 1971) (criminal defendant denied court-appointed counsel for failure to demonstrate indigency);United States v.White,344 F.2d 92, 93 (4th Cir. 1965) (same);Smartt v.Bomar,340 F.2d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1965) (same).
[4] Finally, the appellants' contention that they must be provided counsel because the "poverty" requirement of section 1915 is unconstitutionally vague is patently frivolous.
[5] AFFIRMED.