In Re McDonald
Headline: Court blocks repeat filer from using free-filing privilege for extraordinary petitions, requiring fees and rule-compliant papers before accepting future writ requests, while allowing other filings if not abused.
Holding: The Court denied the petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, required payment of the docketing fee and Rule 33 compliance by March 14, and barred future in forma pauperis extraordinary-writ petitions unless he follows those rules.
- Prevents this man from filing extraordinary writs for free without paying fees or following filing rules.
- Requires payment of docketing fee and Rule 33 compliance before the Court will accept such petitions.
- Leaves open other in forma pauperis filings if the petitioner does not abuse the privilege.
Summary
Background
Jessie McDonald, a pro se litigant, asks the Court for a writ of habeas corpus and to proceed without paying filing fees. His 1974 state conviction for obtaining a 1972 Ford under false pretenses resulted in a three-year sentence; the Tennessee courts ultimately reinstated his conviction and certiorari was denied. Since 1971 he has filed 73 submissions with this Court, including many petitions for extraordinary writs, certiorari petitions, appeals, stays, and rehearing requests. He is not incarcerated and seeks to have the conviction set aside and expunged.
Reasoning
The Court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, explaining that repetitive and frivolous filings consume limited Court resources. It allowed him until March 14 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition meeting Rule 33's requirements. The Court also ordered the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs under specified statutes unless he both pays the fee and complies with Rule 33. The Court emphasized that extraordinary writs are reserved for rare, exceptional cases.
Real world impact
This order directly limits what McDonald can file without paying fees: extraordinary-writ petitions will not be accepted for free unless he follows the rules and pays the docketing fee. He may still file other requests in forma pauperis if he qualifies and does not abuse that privilege. The ruling is an administrative gatekeeping step by the Court and is not a final decision on the merits of his conviction or the underlying constitutional claim.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by three colleagues, dissented. He argued the prospective bar on future in forma pauperis extraordinary-writ filings is unprecedented and likely inconsistent with 28 U.S.C. §1915 and the Court's Rule 46, because those rules require individualized assessment before dismissing pauper filings as frivolous. He warned that the order risks closing the Court's doors and could prevent a future meritorious claim from being heard.
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?