# Wrenn v. Benson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Stevens
On March 27, 1989, we denied pro se petitioner Curtis Wrenn's request to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court's Rule 46.1 in filing petitions for certiorari in Wrenn v. Benson and Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 489 U.S. 1095, 109 S.Ct. 1566, 103 L.Ed.2d 933. Since October Term 1986, petitioner has filed 22 petitions for certiorari with the Court. We denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to 19 of those petitions, and he paid the docketing fee required by this Court's Rule 45(a) on one occasion. He also filed one petition for rehearing.
This Court's Rule 46.1 requires that "[a] party desiring to proceed in this Court in forma pauperis shall file a motion for leave to so proceed, together with his affidavit in the form prescribed in Fed.Rules App.Proc., Form 4 . . . setting forth with particularity facts showing that he comes within he statutory requirements." Our decision to deny a petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on our review of the information contained in the supporting affidavit of indigency. In petitioner's case, a review of the affidavits he has filed with his last nine petitions for certiorari indicates that his financial condition has remained substantially unchanged. The Court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to each petition. Petitioner has nonetheless continued to file for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 996, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989), we said: "Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." We do not think that justice is served if the Court continues to process petitioner's requests to proceed in forma pauperis when his financial condition has not changed from that reflected in a previous filing in which he was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further filings from petitioner in which he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court's Rule 46.1, unless the affidavit submitted with the filing indicates that petitioner's financial condition has substantially changed from that reflected in the affidavits submitted by him in Wrenn v. Benson and Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 489 U.S. 1095, 109 S.Ct. 1566, 103 L.Ed.2d 933 (1989).
It is so ordered.
Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

## Notes

* ↑ See Wrenn v. Benson and Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 489 U.S. 1095, 109 S.Ct. 1566, 103 L.Ed.2d 933 (1989) (IFP status denied); Wrenn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation and Wrenn v. United States District Court, 489 U.S. 1008, 109 S.Ct. 1115, 103 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989) (same); Wrenn v. Thornburgh, 488 U.S. 1039, 109 S.Ct. 863, 102 L.Ed.2d 987 (1989) (same); Wrenn v. Bowen, 488 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 835, 102 L.Ed.2d 967 (1989) (same); Wrenn v. Commissioner, 486 U.S. 1041, 108 S.Ct. 2032, 100 L.Ed.2d 617 (1988) (same); Wrenn v. Gould, 484 U.S. 1067, 108 S.Ct. 1032, 98 L.Ed.2d 996 (1988) (same; paid docketing fee required by this Court's Rule 45(a) and submitted petition in compliance with Rule 33); Wrenn v. Gould, 484 U.S. 961, 108 S.Ct. 448, 98 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (IFP status denied); Wrenn v. Board of Directors, Whitney M. Young, Jr., Health Center, Inc., and Wrenn v. Bowen, 484 U.S. 894, 108 S.Ct. 224, 225, 98 L.Ed.2d 184 (1987) (same); Wrenn v. Capstone Medical Center, 483 U.S. 1003, 107 S.Ct. 3226, 97 L.Ed.2d 732 (1987) (same); Wrenn v. Weinberger, 481 U.S. 1047, 107 S.Ct. 2176, 95 L.Ed.2d 833 (1987) (same); Wrenn v. Christian Hospital NE-NW, 479 U.S. 1081, 107 S.Ct. 1280, 94 L.Ed.2d 139 (1987) (same); Wrenn v. McFadden, 479 U.S. 1028, 107 S.Ct. 870, 93 L.Ed.2d 825 (1987) (same); Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 479 U.S. 981, 107 S.Ct. 566, 93 L.Ed.2d 571 (1986) (same); Wrenn v. Missouri, 479 U.S. 981, 107 S.Ct. 566, 93 L.Ed.2d 571 (1986) (same); Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 479 U.S. 928, 107 S.Ct. 396, 93 L.Ed.2d 349 (1986) (same); Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 479 U.S. 809, 107 S.Ct. 57, 93 L.Ed.2d 16 (1986) (same); Wrenn v. St. Charles Hospital, 477 U.S. 907, 106 S.Ct. 3282, 91 L.Ed.2d 571 (1986); Wrenn v. Walters, 475 U.S. 1128, 106 S.Ct. 1656, 90 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986).
* ↑ Wrenn v. Gould, 485 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1491, 99 L.Ed.2d 718 (1988).
* ↑ The Clerk of the Court provides the following Form 4 affidavit to those who seek assistance in drafting in forma pauperis papers:
* ↑ See Wrenn v. Benson and Wrenn v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 489 U.S. 1095, 109 S.Ct. 1566, 103 L.Ed.2d 933 (1989) ($2,309.67 per month in salary; $46 in cash; $72,000 home; $250 savings bond; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. United States District Court and Wrenn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, 489 U.S. 1008, 109 S.Ct. 1115, 103 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989) ($1,390.20 per month in salary; $72 in cash; $72,000 home; $250 savings bond; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. Thornburgh, 488 U.S. 1039, 109 S.Ct. 863, 102 L.Ed.2d 987 (1989) ($1,390.20 per month in salary; $72 in cash; $72,000 home; $250 savings bond; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. Bowen, 488 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 835, 102 L.Ed.2d 967 (1989) ($2,309.67 per month in salary; $46 in cash; $72,000 home; $250 savings bond; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. Commissioner, 486 U.S. 1041, 108 S.Ct. 2032, 100 L.Ed.2d 617 (1988) ($1,073 per month in salary; $14,496 per year in retirement benefits; $42 in cash; $72,000 home; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. Gould, 484 U.S. 961, 108 S.Ct. 448, 98 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) ($1,073 per month in salary; $8,400 per year in retirement benefits; $61 in cash; $72,000 home; 4 dependents); Wrenn v. Bowen, 484 U.S. 894, 108 S.Ct. 225, 98 L.Ed.2d 184 (1987) ($1,073 per month in salary; $8,400 per year in retirement benefits; $61 in cash; $72,000 home; 4 dependents).
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse