Cases by Issue - US Supreme Court Docketing Fee

In re Bauer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-5440

Petitioner

In re Bauer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 16 (1999)

Decided

Monday, October 18, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Frederick W. Bauer sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for mandamus. In October 1993, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Bauer in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ. Before the 39.8 denial, Bauer had filed three petitions for certiorari and five petitions for extraordinary writs. After the 39.8 denial, Bauer filed two petitions for certiorari. All eleven of Bauer's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for , 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-5260

Petitioner

Judd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 5 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Keith Russell Judd sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for certiorari. In May 1995, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Judd in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ. Before the 39.8 denial, Judd had filed six petitions for certiorari. After the 39.8 denial, Judd filed four petitions for certiorari. All eleven of Judd's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States District Court, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-5316

Petitioner

Prunty

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brooks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 99-5283

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 9 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Robert E. Prunty sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for certiorari. In April 1999, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Prunty in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certiorari. Before the 39.8 denial, Prunty had filed eight petitions for certiorari, all of which were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brooks, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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.

Dempsey v. Martin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-5283

Petitioner

Dempsey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Martin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 99-5316

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 7 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner John B. Dempsey sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for certiorari. In October 1992, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Dempsey in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certiorari. Before the 39.8 denial Dempsey had filed eleven petitions for certiorari and one petition for an extraordinary writ. After the 39.8 denial, Dempsey filed five petitions for certiorari. All eighteen of Dempsey's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Martin, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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.

Brancato v. Gunn

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-9913

Petitioner

Brancato

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gunn

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 1 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Donald H. Brancato sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for certiorari. In June 1999, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Brancato in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certiorari. Before the 39.8 denial, Brancato had filed six petitions for certiorari. All seven of Brancato's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gunn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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.

Antonelli v. Caridine

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-9933

Petitioner

Antonelli

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caridine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 99-5445

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 3 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Michael C. Antonelli sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to two petitions for certiorari. In 1993, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Antonelli in forma pauperis status with respect to two petitions for certiorari. Before the two Rule 39.8 denials, Antonelli had filed 34 petitions for certiorari and 2 petitions for extraordinary writs. After the two Rule 39.8 denials, Antonelli filed 17 petitions for certiorari. All 55 of Antonelli's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Caridine, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

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.