Carl D. Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, Carl D. Potnick v. Suffolk Police

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The statutory scheme recognizes, however, that whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status and whether his claims have merit present two distinct issues.”
• “[N]o party must be made to choose between abandoning a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life.”
• “The statutory scheme recognizes, however, that whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status and whether his claims have merit present two distinct issues.”
• “Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demon- strate absolute destitution; no party must be made to choose between abandoning a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life.”
• “Section 1915[a] does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution[.]”
• “Section 1915[a] does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).