Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 889.0

1042 

OCTOBER TERM, 2009 

November 30, 2009 

558 U. S. 

rendered.  The  GVR  for  consideration  of  a  day’s  old  Supreme 
Court  case  is  already  a  technical  violation  of  sound  practice 
and  should  not  be  extended  further.  Since  we  review  judgments 
rather  than  opinions,  a  lower  court’s  failure  to  discuss  a  pre­
existing  factor  it  should  have  discussed  is  no  basis  for  rever­
sal.  Once  we  disregard  the  logic  (and  the  attendant  limits)  of 
“intervening-factor” GVRs, they metastasize into today’s monster. 
We  should  at  least  give  it  a  new  and  honest  name—not  GVR, 
but perhaps SRMEOPR: Summary Remand for a More Extensive 
Opinion  than  Petitioner  Requested.  If  the  acronym  is  ugly,  so  is 
the  monster. 

No.  09–160.  Department  of  Defense  et  al.  v.  American 
Civil  Liberties  Union  et  al.  C.  A.  2d  Cir.  Certiorari 
granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consid­
eration  in  light  of  § 565  of  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security 
Appropriations  Act,  2010,  and  the  certiﬁcation  by  the  Secretary 
of Defense  pursuant to that provision.  Justice  Sotomayor took 
no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.  Reported 
below:  543  F.  3d  59. 

Certiorari  Dismissed 

No.  09–6600.  Sikora  v.  Clandestine  Attackers/Assail­
ants  et  al.  C.  A.  8th  Cir.  Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to 
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.  See 
this  Court’s  Rule  39.8.  As  petitioner  has  repeatedly  abused  this 
Court’s  process,  the  Clerk  is  directed  not  to  accept  any  further 
petitions  in  noncriminal  matters  from  petitioner  unless  the  dock­
eting  fee  required  by  Rule  38(a)  is  paid  and  the  petition  is  sub­
mitted  in  compliance  with  Rule  33.1.  See  Martin  v.  District  of 
Columbia  Court  of  Appeals,  506  U. S.  1  (1992)  (per  curiam). 
Justice Stevens dissents.  See id., at 4, and cases cited therein. 
No.  09–6686.  Baumer  v.  Cate,  Secretary,  California  De­
partment  of  Corrections  and  Rehabilitation.  C.  A.  9th 
Cir.  Motion of  petitioner for leave  to proceed in  forma pauperis 
denied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–6697.  Smith  v.  McKune.  C.  A.  10th  Cir.  Motion  of 
petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  denied,  and 
certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–6721.  Wakefield  v.  Walt  Disney  Co.  et  al.  C.  A. 
9th  Cir.  Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pau­