Courts understand that a litigant’s financial condition can change. If the litigant’s financial situation has improved, the adverse party or clerk of court can request to traverse the supporting affidavits1 or the court may reevaluate the grant of IFP status sua sponte. Conversely, the court may grant IFP status to a litigant initially denied permission to proceed IFP (or who never requested the privilege) but who later experiences or expresses financial need.
The Louisiana Supreme Court examined the latter situation in Harrison v. Jones.2 In that case, the plaintiff had borrowed money from a friend to commence the litigation.3 The trial court then ordered the plaintiff to post a bond set at ten times the amount initially borrowed.4 Because the plaintiff could not pay that cost himself nor borrow that sum, he applied for IFP status.5
The trial court quickly denied the application, apparently due to the plaintiff’s previous fee payment.6 After restating the law that the IFP privilege can be extended at any point in the litigation process, the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the policy reasons for reversing the trial court:
The fact that a litigant does all that he can to pay, at least, the initial costs of the suit, is to be commended rather than condemned, as it evidences an honest intention on his part to pay all that he is able to pay of the costs of the litigation. The mere fact that some sympathetic friend hands a man, who is down and out, a $10 bill to bring a lawsuit does not, by any means, indicate that the litigant, otherwise indigent, can continue to borrow to pay future costs, or that he should be compelled to do so, as contended by respondent judge.7