Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed "in forma pauperis", as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal "in forma pauperis" petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court. Martin v. District of Columbia Court