In Re Sassower
Headline: Court bars a serial filer from submitting more noncriminal petitions unless he pays required filing fees and follows petition rules after repeated frivolous filings strained the Court’s resources.
Holding: The Court denied his request to proceed without fees and barred further noncriminal petitions unless he pays the docketing fee and files petitions that comply with court rules.
- Stops the Court from accepting further noncriminal petitions from him without payment and compliance.
- Clerk may refuse to file frivolous noncriminal petitions from this individual.
- Criminal challenges remain allowed despite the filing restriction.
Summary
Background
George Sassower, a self-represented litigant, asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion explains that over the last three years he filed many petitions and that the Court had granted fee-free status before, but most of those petitions were denied. In the last four months he sharply increased filings and now has ten pending petitions the Court calls patently frivolous. The Court denied his request to proceed without fees and set a deadline to pay the required docketing fee and file petitions that meet the Court’s form and content rules.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Court should allow more fee-free filings from someone who repeatedly files frivolous petitions. The Court cited earlier orders in similar cases and explained that its limited time and staff should focus on meritorious claims. Finding an abuse of the review process, the Court ordered the Clerk not to accept any further noncriminal petitions from this person unless he pays the docket fee and submits petitions that comply with filing rules. The Court limited the sanction to noncriminal matters and pointedly left criminal challenges available.
Real world impact
Practically, this means the individual must pay filing fees and follow formatting and content rules to have new noncriminal petitions accepted. The Clerk may refuse future noncriminal filings from him until he meets those conditions. The order is a procedural restriction designed to conserve Court resources and does not decide the merits of his underlying claims.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices, who did not take part in the decision, are noted as not participating in this ruling.
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?