Demos v. Storrie
Headline: Court blocks a serial pro se filer from free filings, denies in forma pauperis for this petition, and orders future noncriminal petitions rejected unless fees and proper forms are submitted.
Holding:
- Prevents this serial filer from filing noncriminal petitions for free without paying fees.
- Requires payment of docketing fees and proper form before the Clerk will accept future petitions.
- Allows the Court to reject repetitive, abusive filings by nonlawyers.
Summary
Background
A man who files petitions without a lawyer has repeatedly asked the Court to waive filing fees. Since October 1988 he made 48 such filings, many attacking lower-court sanctions for frivolous papers. Two years earlier the Court already said he could not proceed without paying fees for "extraordinary" filings. After more filings, the Court received another petition from him and considered whether to allow free filing again.
Reasoning
The Court used an internal rule (Rule 39.8) aimed at curbing repetitive, abusive filings. It refused to grant in forma pauperis (free-filing) status for this petition, gave him until March 29, 1993 to pay required docketing fees and to submit the petition in proper form, and ordered the Clerk to reject any future noncriminal petitions from him unless he both pays the fee and follows filing rules. The opinion said his continuing pattern of abusive submissions justifies this sanction.
Real world impact
For this person, the ruling means he can no longer file noncriminal petitions for free and his future uncertified papers may be rejected if he does not follow fee and form requirements. The decision also reinforces the Court’s power to use procedural rules to limit repetitive or frivolous filings by nonlawyers.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Blackmun) dissented, arguing the Court should have simply denied the petition rather than use special procedural orders, which he believes are less efficient than past practice.
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?