Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison

Background

Pro se petitioner Cross, a prisoner, asked to proceed without paying fees under the Court’s Rule 39. The Court found his requests frivolous under Rule 39.8 and described a long pattern of abusive filings: earlier denials on March 8, 1999; six prior petitions found patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent; two current petitions bringing the total to twelve frivolous filings; and four additional frivolous petitions pending. The Court referenced Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals in explaining its action.

Reasoning

The main question was whether Cross should be allowed to proceed without paying docketing fees and whether the Court should limit his ability to file more petitions. The Court concluded that these repeated, patently frivolous filings warranted denial of in forma pauperis status under Rule 39.8. It gave Cross until June 14, 1999, to pay the Rule 38 docketing fees and to submit petitions that comply with Rule 33.1. The Court also instructed the Clerk not to accept any further noncriminal petitions for review from Cross unless he first pays the fees and follows the filing rules. The sanction is expressly limited to noncriminal matters and does not affect criminal-challenge petitions or nonfrivolous extraordinary-writ filings.

Real world impact

The order forces this prisoner to pay fees and meet basic filing requirements before the Court will consider new noncriminal review requests, and it aims to conserve the Court’s limited resources for nonabusive petitioners. Because the sanction is limited, Cross may still seek review of criminal sanctions and may file nonfrivolous extraordinary-writ petitions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that preparing and policing orders like this uses more of the Court’s limited resources than simply denying many frivolous petitions, and he respectfully disagreed with the majority’s approach.