CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Gurda Farms, Inc. (In Re Gurda Farms, Inc.)

This case involves an appeal by thirteen migrant seasonal farmworkers (plaintiffs-appellants), who are creditors of defendants-bankrupts Gurda Farms, Inc. and Stanley Gurda. The farmworkers challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that denied their request to proceed in forma pauperis (without payment of fees) in their appeal. The plaintiffs had previously obtained a judgment against the defendants under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 and were prosecuting that action in forma pauperis when the defendants filed for bankruptcy, automatically staying the civil suit. The core legal question is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows individuals to proceed in forma pauperis, is applicable to creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's decision, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kras. The District Court distinguished this case from Kras, noting the plaintiffs' pre-existing in forma pauperis status and the minimal impact on the bankruptcy system's self-supporting goal. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis.

In Forma PauperisBankruptcy AppealCreditor RightsFarm Labor Contractor Registration ActStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionReferees' Salary ActBankruptcy Fees
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reado v. Texas General Land Office

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Texas General Land Office, filed a lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA following his termination. He also sought to proceed in forma pauperis and requested appointment of counsel. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion but denying the request for counsel. After plaintiff objected, District Judge Cobb conducted a de novo review, overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report, and consequently granted the in forma pauperis motion while denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII Civil Rights ActIn Forma Pauperis MotionAppointment of Counsel DenialMagistrate Judge RecommendationDe Novo ReviewObjections OverruledDiscretionary Appointment of CounselSufficiency of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jason v. Baptist Hospital

Eligah Jason sought in forma pauperis status and appointed counsel for a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit against Baptist Hospital. Jason, a laborer sent by American Temporary Force, alleged he was subjected to racial epithets and a hostile work environment by a hospital employee, Douglas Manning, and was injured during his employment. The Magistrate Judge found Jason qualified for in forma pauperis due to his poverty but determined he had not made diligent efforts to find an attorney. Furthermore, the court concluded that Jason's hostile work environment claim was likely without merit, as it involved a single instance of harassment by a non-supervisory individual without timely notification to supervisors. Therefore, the report recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion and denying the request for appointed counsel.

employment discriminationTitle VIIin forma pauperisappointment of counselhostile work environmentracial discriminationpro se litigantMagistrate Judge recommendationEEOC determinationFifth Circuit law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1994

Tatum v. Community Bank

Brenda Tatum, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII racial discrimination suit against her former employer, Community Bank. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting in forma pauperis but denying counsel, citing a lack of a meritorious claim despite Tatum establishing a prima facie case. Tatum filed objections, arguing that the employer's stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. District Judge Joe J. Fisher conducted a de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's report and overruling Tatum's objections. The court granted Tatum's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointed counsel, concluding that her subjective beliefs and speculative allegations were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success or prove discriminatory intent.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselPro Se LitigantPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentMagistrate Judge Report
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1995

Johnson v. City of Port Arthur

Glenn C. Johnson, a former employee of the City of Port Arthur, sought in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel for a proposed ADA suit against his ex-employer after being terminated due to a disability. He suffered rhabdomy-dosis and could no longer perform strenuous tasks, leading to his termination. The City claimed inability to accommodate due to a lack of light-duty positions and budget cuts. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion due to Johnson's financial hardship and diligent efforts to secure counsel, but denying appointment of counsel, finding his ADA claim lacked a substantial probability of success. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that changing a laborer to light-duty was not a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in forma pauperis status, denying appointment of counsel, and allowing Johnson until July 31, 1995, to file his Title VII complaint.

ADAAmericans With Disabilities ActIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipEEOCMagistrate Judge Report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 1996

Maxwell v. Kight

This Memorandum Order adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Mary Louise Maxwell's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. Maxwell sought to file an employment discrimination suit under Title VII and ADEA against the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 450. The in forma pauperis motion was denied due to Maxwell's financial ability to pay filing fees. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that Local 450 did not meet the statutory definition of an "employer" under Title VII or ADEA, as it employed fewer than the required number of employees. The court further determined that the local and international unions could not be considered a single employer, thus denying both of Maxwell's motions.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionUnionSingle Employer DoctrineFifth Circuit
References
29
Case No. 008310002-01
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Lurea Hornbuckle v. Frank Kent Cadillac Owner William P. Churchill President CEO

Lurea Hombuckle filed an Affidavit of Indigence in Tarrant County, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid filing fees. She was requested to provide income verification, specifically documentation of government assistance like Social Security Disability or food stamps, to approve the affidavit. A judge subsequently reviewed her application for community service, found her indigent, and ordered her to complete 15 hours of community service. The case also involved a payment plan for an outstanding balance of $184.68, with a required down payment and monthly installments to be initiated in person at the Arlington Municipal Court by November 3, 2015.

IndigenceCommunity ServiceAffidavitPovertyFinancial AssistanceMunicipal CourtCourt FeesPayment PlanWarrantGovernment Assistance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SOMMERSETT v. City of New York

Joy Eyvonne Sommersett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Probation, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA. She claimed failure to promote, unequal employment terms, retaliation, and harassment through unfair evaluations. Sommersett requested the court to appoint counsel to assist her. The court reviewed her claims and found them unlikely to be of substance, noting that alleged discriminatory conduct was either not severe enough, not timely raised, or lacked an inference of discrimination. Therefore, the court denied Sommersett's request for appointed counsel.

DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion for CounselPro Se Litigant
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Associates

Plaintiff Timothy Eckert, proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging anti-retaliation violations under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and breaches of New York State Attorney Disciplinary Rules. He sued several lawyers, law firms, and union representatives associated with his former employer, arguing they qualified as 'employers' under the FMLA and retaliated against him by making misrepresentations in a related FMLA case. The court granted Eckert's request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the FMLA claims, finding that attorneys and union representatives are not 'employers' as defined by the FMLA. Furthermore, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law disciplinary claims.

FMLAAnti-retaliationPro Se LitigationSubject Matter JurisdictionIn Forma PauperisAttorney Disciplinary RulesNew York LawDefinition of EmployerSupplemental JurisdictionComplaint Dismissal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graff v. United States

Vincent Graff, convicted of bank fraud in 1996, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. His claims included ineffective assistance of trial counsel, insufficient evidence, improper sentencing, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. District Judge Spatt denied the motion, ruling that most claims were procedurally barred as they had been previously addressed on direct appeal. The claim regarding ineffective appellate counsel was reviewed on its merits but was also denied, as Graff failed to demonstrate deficient performance or resulting prejudice. The court granted Graff's request to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his other requests for discovery materials, an evidentiary hearing, and appointed counsel, finding his claims lacked merit. A certificate of appealability was also denied.

Bank Fraud28 U.S.C. § 2255Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselSentencing GuidelinesProcedural BarHabeas CorpusSufficiency of EvidenceSupervised ReleaseRestitution
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 14 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational