4.2 Indigency via Presumptions

Louisiana law creates a set of rebuttable presumptions of indigency. An applicant is presumed indigent if, through supporting documentation, it is shown that the applicant (1) “is receiving public assistance benefits” or (2) has an income “less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five percent of the federal poverty level.”1  The supporting documentation may be submitted under seal.2

Under the Louisiana District Court Rules (Uniform Rules), a litigant who is a “client of a legal services program funded by the Legal Service Corporation or a Pro Bono Project that receives referrals from a legal services program . . . ” is also entitled to the presumption.3  Legal services clients can thus avoid answering additional asset and expense questions on the standardized affidavit.4  However, these clients must still answer the affidavit’s income questions and attest that their income is “less than or equal to 125% of the federal poverty level . . . .”5

In the face of a rebuttable presumption of indigency, the clerk of court or an opposing party may traverse the IFP affidavit.6  If the traversal (or the court’s independent judgment) leads the court to determine that the litigant is not indigent, the court may only deny IFP status after “provid[ing] written reasons for its finding.”7

• 1La. C.C.P. art. 5183(B)(2).
• 2See State v. Pizzolato, 2021-1608, p. 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/14/22), 2022 WL 767194 (citing Stolzle v. Safety & Sys. Assur. Consultants, Inc., 2002-1197 (La. 5/24/02), 819 So. 2d 287, 289) (“Courts have noted that income tax returns are confidential in nature and are of a personal character. Accordingly, the family court abused its discretion in denying the motion to seal the income tax return of [the applicant].”).
• 3La. Dist. Ct. Rules, Appendix 8.0 (In Forma Pauperis Affidavit) p. 3, For a fuller discussion on the standard affidavit in the Uniform Rules, see Section 5.
• 4Id. (“[S]kip all parts of question 9, and continue with question 10 on the next page.”).
• 5Id.
• 6For more discussion of the procedure for traversing an affidavit, see Section 9.
• 7La. C.C.P. art. 5183(B)(2); see Square v. Paynes, 2022-0385, p. 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/18/22), 2022 WL 2802803 (“[T]he family court failed to give written reasons explaining why the presumption that the mover is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis was rebutted.”).