From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malik v. Lavalley

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 21, 1993
994 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not "authorize[] the federal courts to waive or pay . . . witness fees" on behalf of pro se litigant

Summary of this case from Aldrich v. Farinella

Opinion

No. 1221, Docket 92-2796.

Submitted May 5, 1993.

Decided May 21, 1993.

Abdel-Jabor Malik, pro se.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Sol. Gen., Nancy A. Spiegel, Andrea Oser, Asst. Attys. Gen., Albany, NY, on the brief, for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before MESKILL, Chief Judge, PIERCE and WALKER, Circuit Judges.


Abdel-Jabor Malik is a pro se civil litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis status in this litigation. His complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two corrections officers for excessive use of force was dismissed after a bench trial and judgment was entered on December 15, 1992. On appeal, Malik's principal argument is that the magistrate judge should have secured the attendance at trial of two witnesses because Malik was unable to do so himself. The court refused to pay the necessary witness fees, even though Malik was proceeding in forma pauperis.

We affirm the judgment of the district court and write in order to bring this Circuit in line with the various other circuits that have held that federal courts are not authorized to waive or pay witness fees on behalf of an in forma pauperis litigant. See, e.g., Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991, 108 S.Ct. 1298, 99 L.Ed.2d 508 (1988); McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368, 1373 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 965, 108 S.Ct. 1236, 99 L.Ed.2d 435 (1988); Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); United States Marshals Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1056-57 (8th Cir. 1984); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289-90 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 917, 104 S.Ct. 282, 78 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983). We agree with our sister circuits that no reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 supports the contention that Congress authorized the federal courts to waive or pay for Malik's witness fees.

The Supreme Court has written in the context of indigent litigants that "the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress." United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2089, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976). Because Congress has not authorized courts to pay an indigent litigant's witness fees, the district court did not err by refusing to pay Malik's.

We have considered Malik's other contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Malik v. Lavalley

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 21, 1993
994 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1993)

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not "authorize[] the federal courts to waive or pay . . . witness fees" on behalf of pro se litigant

Summary of this case from Aldrich v. Farinella

finding federal courts not authorized to waive or pay witness fees for in forma pauperis litigants and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Maxwell v. Bellamy

affirming dismissal of complaint by Di Bianco, M.J., N.D.N.Y.

Summary of this case from Koehl v. Greene

affirming dismissal of complaint by Di Bianco, M.J., N.D.N.Y.

Summary of this case from Murray v. Palmer

listing a number of cases from other circuits concluding the same

Summary of this case from Walker v. Shafer

agreeing with and citing cases from six other circuits holding that "federal courts are not authorized to waive or pay witness fees on behalf of an in forma pauperis litigant"

Summary of this case from Griffin v. Perry
Case details for

Malik v. Lavalley

Case Details

Full title:ABDEL-JABOR MALIK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THOMAS L. LAVALLEY, CORRECTIONS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 21, 1993

Citations

994 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Pagan v. City of Rochester

Granting in forma pauperis status means that this Court will not charge service fees upon plaintiff (see…

KEAN v. DYKEN

The refusal to issue subpoenas in the absence of such evidence is not improper.Gregg v. Clerk of the United…