Vladimir Zatko v. California (502 U.S. 16)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 4, 1991 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 502 U.S. 16 · 112 S. Ct. 355
- Decided
- November 4, 1991
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 8–0
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Petition denied or appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Last Term, we amended Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to add the following: “39.8. If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary-writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Because in forma pauperis petitioners lack the financial disincentives — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that help to deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, we felt such a Rule change was necessary to provide us some control over the informa pawperis docket. In ordering the amendment, we sought to discourage frivolous and malicious in forma pauperis filings, “particularly [from] those few persons whose filings are repetitive with the obvious effect of burdening the office of the Clerk and other members of the Court staff.” In re Amendment to Rule 39, 500 U. S. 13 (1991). Today, we invoke Rule 39.8 for the first time, and deny in forma pauperis status to petitioners Vladimir Zatko and James L. Martin. We do not do so casually, however. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis only with respect to two petitioners who have repeatedly abused the integrity of our process through frequent frivolous filings. Over the last 10 years, Zatko has filed 73 petitions in this Court; 34 of those filings have come…
Excerpt of a 4,224-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.