Rivera v. Florida Department of Corrections
Headline: Court denies fee-free filings for serial civil petitioner and blocks future noncriminal requests to review lower-court decisions or seek extraordinary relief unless he pays the docket fee and follows filing rules.
Holding: The Court denied Rivera’s request to proceed without paying fees and barred further noncriminal petitions from him unless he pays the docketing fee and follows the Court’s filing rules.
- Blocks Rivera from filing noncriminal petitions without paying the docketing fee and following filing rules.
- Allows the Court to refuse further frivolous filings and conserve its limited resources.
- Leaves Rivera free to petition about criminal sentences or criminal matters.
Summary
Background
Rivera, representing himself, asked the Court for permission to proceed without paying filing fees. His case involved the Florida Department of Corrections. Rivera had filed many petitions to the Court before. In January the Court twice denied him fee-free status under Rule 39.8. At that time he had filed two extraordinary-writ petitions and eight petitions for review that the Court called patently frivolous. The current petition was the Court’s thirteenth frivolous filing, and four more frivolous filings remained pending.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Rivera should be allowed to proceed without paying fees and whether to bar further noncriminal filings. The justices concluded Rivera had abused the Court’s certiorari and extraordinary-writ processes by repeatedly filing patently frivolous petitions. The Court denied his fee-free request, required him to pay the docketing fee and submit a petition that complies with filing rules by April 12, 1999, and ordered the Clerk not to accept future noncriminal petitions from him unless he pays the fee and complies with Rule 33.1. The Court limited the sanction to noncriminal matters so Rivera may still challenge criminal sanctions.
Real world impact
Practically, Rivera cannot submit new civil or other noncriminal petitions to the Court without paying the docketing fee and following procedural rules. The order is meant to protect the Court’s time and to prioritize other petitioners who have not abused the process. Because this ruling is a procedural sanction, it does not resolve the merits of any underlying disputes.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, saying he disagreed for reasons he had explained earlier in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?