Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that district court abused its discretion in denying pauper status when court included spouse’s income with litigant’s assets without also considering spouse’s liabilities
• stating that “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• emphasizing that dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) requires a showing of bad 9 faith and not a mere inaccuracy
• finding that when spouses share incomes, a court 21 could consider a spouse’s income when ruling on an IFP application
• stating that “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• explaining that dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) requires “a showing of bad faith . . . not merely inaccuracy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).