In Re Demos
Headline: Court blocks indigent man's free filings for extraordinary writs, upholds fee requirement and requires formal petition compliance, making it harder for him to seek immediate court orders without paying fees.
Holding: The Court denied certiorari, refused free filing status for two extraordinary-writ petitions, and barred future free extraordinary-writ filings by the indigent litigant unless he pays the docket fee and complies with the Court’s filing rules.
- Indigent filers barred from free extraordinary-writ filings unless they pay a docket fee and comply with filing rules.
- Clerk will refuse future extraordinary-writ filings from this litigant unless fee paid.
- Requires payment and formal petition compliance to have these writs considered.
Summary
Background
An indigent pro se litigant, John Demos, sought three separate forms of relief from a single lower-court order that denied him free filing (in forma pauperis) and barred further free filings for certain extraordinary writs. Demos had made 32 in forma pauperis filings in this Court since October 1988, and many were described by the Court as frivolous or sanction-related. The lower court had limited his ability to make further free filings for extraordinary relief.
Reasoning
The Court treated the central question as whether Demos could continue to file extraordinary-writ petitions for free. The Court said his repeated filings, including three petitions attacking the same lower-court order, disrupted the Court’s docket and amounted to an abuse of the court system. Citing earlier decisions, the Court denied the petition for certiorari, refused to allow Demos to proceed in forma pauperis on the two extraordinary-writ petitions before it, and barred him from future free filings for extraordinary relief. The Court required that, if he wants consideration on the merits, he must pay the docketing fee under Rule 38(a) and submit a petition complying with Rule 33 by May 20, 1991.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, Demos cannot file further extraordinary-writ petitions in this Court for free; any such petitions will be refused unless he pays the fee and follows the Court’s filing rules. He remains able to seek other kinds of relief in forma pauperis if he qualifies under Rule 39 and does not abuse that privilege.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens, dissented, arguing the Court lacked clear authority to impose a permanent ban, that only four of Demos’s filings were extraordinary writs, and that the ban risks closing the Court’s doors to indigent litigants.
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?