The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Indigents, U.S. Supreme Court Docketing Fee Decisions

Antonelli v. Caridine

May pro se petitioner Michael C. Antonelli be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Antonelli's requests as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Antonelli had abused the Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Antonelli in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Antonelli from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Brancato v. Gunn

May pro se petitioner Donald H. Brancato be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Brancato's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Brancato had abused the Court's certiorari process, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Brancato in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Brancato from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Dempsey v. Martin

May pro se petitioner John B. Dempsey be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Dempsey's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Dempsey had abused this Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Dempsey in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Dempsey from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

In re Bauer

May pro se petitioner Frederick W. Bauer be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Bauer's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Bauer had repeatedly abused the Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or extraordinary writs from Bauer in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Bauer from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Judd v. United States District Court

May pro se petitioner Keith Russell Judd be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Judd's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Judd had abused the Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Judd in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Judd from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Prunty v. Brooks

May pro se petitioner Robert E. Prunty be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Prunty's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Prunty had abused the Court's certiorari process, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Prunty in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Prunty from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.