In Re Routt
Headline: Court denies a petitioner’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and gives until October 25, 1993 to pay the docket fee and submit a proper petition under the Court’s rules.
Holding: The Court denied the request to proceed without paying filing fees and gave the filer until October 25, 1993 to pay the docket fee and file a petition that meets the Court’s rules.
- Denies the request to proceed without paying filing fees.
- Gives the filer until October 25, 1993 to pay the docket fee.
- Requires the petition to comply with the Court’s Rule 33 filing standards.
Summary
Background
A person seeking review of their imprisonment asked to proceed without paying the Court’s filing fees. The Court denied that request and allowed the filer until October 25, 1993 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition that complies with Rule 33.
Reasoning
The immediate question was whether the person could file without paying the usual fees. The Court refused the fee waiver and required payment and compliance with the Court’s procedural filing rules. The order addresses only these filing requirements and does not resolve the underlying challenge to the person’s custody in this action.
Real world impact
The decision means this filer must either pay the required fee and fix any defects in the petition by October 25, 1993 or risk losing the opportunity to have the Court consider the petition. The ruling focuses on court procedure rather than the substance of the habeas claim, so it does not decide whether the person is entitled to relief from custody.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented, stating that he would deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without reaching the merits of the fee-waiver motion, citing Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983).
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?