Document: 502 U.S. 16 112 S.Ct. 355 116 L.Ed.2d 293 Vladimir ZATKOv.CALIFORNIA. ZATKO v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN OF CALIFORNIA. STATES. James L. MARTIN Sally MRVOS. Edward C. SMITH et al. DELAWARE LAW SCHOOL WIDENER UNIVERSITY, INC., John D. WALMER Stephen W. TOWNSEND SUPREME NEW JERSEY. BAR COLUMBIA APPEALS. Daniel HUYETT. [16-Continued.] Nos. 91-5052, 91-5111, 91-5166, 91-5167, 91-5244, 91-5246, 91-5307, 91-5331, 91-5332, 91-5401, 91-5416, 91-5476, 91-5583, 91-5594, 91-5692, 91-5730 and 91-5732. Nov. 4, 1991. PER CURIAM. 1 Last Term, we amended Rule 39 of Rules Supreme Court United States to add following: 2 "39.8 If satisfied that a petition for writ certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or an extraordinary writ, as case may be, is frivolous malicious, deny motion leave proceed in forma pauperis." 3 Because pauperis petitioners lack financial disincentives—filing fees attorney's fees—that help deter other litigants from filing petitions, felt such rule change was necessary provide us some control over docket. In ordering amendment, sought discourage malicious filings, "particularly [from] those few persons whose filings are repetitive with obvious effect burdening office Clerk members staff." re Amendment 39, 500 ----, 111 1572, 114 15 (1991). 4 Today, invoke 39.8 first time, status Zatko Martin. We do not so casually, however. only respect two who have repeatedly abused integrity our process through frequent filings. Over last 10 years, has filed 73 petitions this Court; 34 come within years. Martin been slightly less prolific same 10-year period 45 them each their up point, permitted pauperis, denied without recorded dissent. However, Court's goal fairly dispensing justice "is compromised when forced devote its limited resources processing repetitious requests" these. Sindram, 498 596, 597, 599 conclude pattern on part resulted extreme abuse system. hope action will future similar practices, these cases. 5 The dissent complains that, by invoking against Martin, appear ignore duty equal access both rich poor. message send quite opposite, order advance interests justice, general practice waive all costs indigent individuals, whether individuals file frivolous. As recognizes, example, well half numerous since beginning Term best characterized It important observe applied although might technically apply them. Instead, usual manner, underscoring commitment hearing claims, however meritless, But "[i]t vital right be incumbered would filings." supra, S.Ct., at 1573. For reason take step censuring unique—not merely among seek but also paid required fees—because they made totally demands resources. 6 To abusive tactics actually hinder providing all, therefore cases, pursuant 39.8. Accordingly, allowed until November 25, 1991, which pay docketing fee 38 submit compliance 33 Court. Future merit additional measures. 7 ordered. 8 Justice THOMAS took no consideration decision motions. 9 STEVENS, whom BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. three Justices, "vital" purpose protecting "the process" certiorari.1 Since became effective July 1, almost 1,000 pausing determine were meaning 39. my judgment, could Nevertheless, under procedures place many manner. "integrity slightest refusal spend valuable time deciding enforce petitioners. 11 different procedure Their multiple enabled single out candidates enforcement rule. result, cases denies 39.8, rather than simply denying certiorari. practical simple denial.2 symbolic effort draw distinctions multitude petitions—none granted any event—is powerful. Although intended about need orderly administration judicial process, it conveys does overriding concern poor.3 12 By today, places yet another barrier way petitioners.4 branding increases chances very contain colorable claim, evaluated attention deserve. 13 I believe little gain much lose applying certiorari vote future. rule, States, provides follows: "If past, noted work "facilitated once determination there petitioner's claim," determining form should denial dismissal" questionable jurisdiction. Davis Jacobs, 454 911, 914-915, 102 417, 418-420, 70 226 (1981) (STEVENS, J., respecting writs certiorari). "Our longstanding tradition leaving door open classes proud decent one worth maintaining. See Talamini Allstate Ins. Co., 470 1067, 1070, 105 1824, 1825, 85 125 (1985) concurring)." 599, (1991) (Marshall, dissenting, joined BLACKMUN, JJ.). "And litigants, . can reinforce hearts minds society's fortunate unsettling pleas welcome here." Demos, 1571, 1571-1572, --- ----

Category: 1