People v. Roslyn Sephardic Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 240(j), Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j), a trial court may dismiss an in forma pauperis application if there was no legally cognizable cause of action or appeal filed
• affirming denial of IFP petition and dismissal of action based upon trial court’s belief that underlying complaint was frivolous
• “Courts should not allow a litigant seeking in forma pauperis status to use the court’s time and the taxpayer’s money to support a frivolous claim.”
• “[a]lthough the current appeal was pending at the time that Rule 240(j) went into effect, Pa.R.C.P. 52 enables this court to apply it to the present case”
• “An individual seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, thus requesting to have court costs paid for from funds provided to this Commonwealth by its taxpayers, has a responsibility to present a valid cause of action.”
• “[I]f upon consideration of an in forma pauperis petition the trial court determines that the underlying claim in the complaint, procedure or appeal is frivolous, the trial court should dismiss that claim and expressly state so in its order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).