Day v. Day
Headline: Court bars a repeat pro se filer from submitting more noncriminal certiorari petitions unless he pays docketing fees and follows the Court’s filing rules to curb abusive, frivolous filings.
Holding: The Court denied his request to proceed without fees and ordered the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal certiorari petitions from him unless he pays docketing fees and files rule-compliant petitions.
- Prevents the petitioner from filing noncriminal certiorari petitions without paying fees and following filing rules.
- Directs the Clerk to refuse future noncriminal petitions from this filer unless requirements met.
- Leaves open his ability to petition about criminal sanctions.
Summary
Background
Roy A. Day, a pro se (self-represented) filer, asked to proceed without paying Court fees under the Court’s fee rules. The Court noted that Day had filed many petitions over the past nine years, most previously granted fee waivers but denied on their merits, and that he filed eight more frivolous petitions after an earlier warning. The Court called his conduct an abuse of the certiorari process and relied on earlier similar orders denying repetitive filings.
Reasoning
The core question was whether this repeated, frivolous filing behavior justified denying him further fee waivers and limiting future filings. The Court held that each filing consumes limited institutional resources and that preventing repetitious, frivolous petitions promotes the interests of justice. It therefore denied his request to proceed without fees, gave him a deadline to pay docketing fees and fix any filing defects, and ordered the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal petitions from him unless he pays fees and files correctly. The Court specifically left open petitions that challenge potential criminal sanctions.
Real world impact
Practically, the decision requires this individual to pay fees and follow filing rules before the Court will accept more noncriminal petitions, reducing wasteful filings and freeing the Court to consider other claims. It continues the Court’s practice of using administrative controls to deter repetitive, frivolous filings. The restriction does not stop the filer from seeking review of criminal matters.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented, saying he would simply deny the petitions without commenting on the fee motions and indicating he will not routinely note similar dissents in the future absent exceptional circumstances.
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?