Rule 54-II.Waiver of Costs, Fees, or Security

This rule has been substantially amended and reorganized to implement the Expanding Fee Waivers for Low-Income Litigants Amendment Act of 2022, D.C. Law 24-246, 69 D.C. Reg. 14603 (February 23, 2023), D.C. Code § 15-712. Among other things, the amendments significantly expand the circumstances under which litigants may qualify for an automatic fee waiver under D.C. Code § 15-712(a)(1). The qualifying health care benefits formerly listed in section (c) have been included in the list of qualifying financial assistance programs cited in subsection (b)(1). Amended section (h) includes new statutory deadlines for deciding fee waiver applications. Subsection (i)(1) has been amended, and new subsection (i)(4) has been added, consistent with the new service provisions in D.C. Code § 15-712(f). New subsection (j)(2) implements a new statutory option for applicants to request a hearing if denied a fee waiver. Section (k) has been amended to permit those approved for a fee waiver to request other documents, in addition to free transcripts, as necessary to resolve Superior Court proceedings, as well as appeals. Section (l) is a new provision implementing new confidentiality requirements in D.C. Code § 15-712(d). Section (m) is also a new provision implementing filing fee limitations in D.C. Code § 15-712(e). Finally, minor amendments have been made to other sections to align with the new language of D.C. Code § 15-712.

To the extent D.C. Code § 15-712 includes procedural rules, the Court has adopted them pursuant to its exclusive rulemaking authority under D.C. Code § 11-946. See Woodroof v. Cunningham, 147 A.3d 777 (D.C. 2016).

Section (b) was amended to permit the clerk to grant applications when the applicant receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance for Children, Program on Work, Employment, and Responsibility, or Supplemental Security Income.

Section (i) has been amended to clarify and limit the types of service that the court is required to undertake on behalf of in forma pauperis litigants. Generally, the court will attempt service of the complaint and related materials by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by first-class mail with notice and acknowledgment. By motion, the court may appoint a process server to serve witness subpoenas or to serve a complaint and related materials on an incompetent or minor defendant as required by statute.

By limiting the types of service and reducing corresponding costs, the court also helps to limit the in forma pauperis litigant’s potential liability where “[c]osts may be assessed against a party proceeding in forma pauperis at the conclusion of an unsuccessful suit.” Robinson v. Howard University, 455 A.2d 1363, 1367 (D.C. 1983). Additionally, these amendments address a concern first raised in Atherton v. Brooks, 728 A.2d 1195 (D.C. 1999), in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals opined that the language in Rule 54-II related to the waiver of prepayment of witness fees could be interpreted as imposing a corresponding obligation on the trial court to serve witness subpoenas—“an administrative burden” that might not have been considered when the rule was adopted.

D.C. Code § 15-712 governs in forma pauperis applications. There is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure addressing such applications, but 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does. The District of Columbia statute, unlike the federal statute, does not provide the court with discretion to deny an application for in forma pauperis based upon the merit of the underlying action. Compare D.C. Code § 15-712 with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2); see In re Turkowski, 741 A.2d 406, 407 (D.C. 1999) (per curiam) (“the court must grant the request for in forma pauperis status if a proper application is made, and, having done so, thereafter treat the case as any other, including, of course, any appropriate dispositive actions”); accord Lewis v. Fulwood, 569 A.2d 594, 595 (D.C. 1990) (per curiam). The Rule requires applicants seeking in forma pauperis status to submit their request utilizing Form 106A (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Costs, Fees or Security), which includes citations to pertinent statutes and case law. Subsection (k) sets forth the standards for ruling upon a motion for free transcripts. See, e.g., P.F. v. N.C., 953 A.2d 1107, 1119 (D.C. 2008) (noting that an appellant proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to a free transcript “if the trial judge ... certifies that the appeal is not frivolous” and that “[d]oubts about [the] substantiality of the questions on appeal and the need for a transcript to explore them should be resolved in favor of the petitioner”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Hancock v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 472 A.2d 867 (D.C. 1984), as discussed in P.F., 953 A.2d at 1119.