Whitaker v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
Headline: Court denies a pro se filer’s request to proceed without fees and bars further noncriminal certiorari petitions unless he pays docketing fees and follows filing rules, limiting repetitive filings.
Holding: The Court denied a pro se filer's motion to proceed without fees and barred the Clerk from accepting further noncriminal certiorari petitions from him unless he pays docketing fees and complies with filing rules.
- Stops this filer from submitting noncriminal petitions without fees and proper filing
- Saves Court time and resources by deterring repetitive frivolous filings
- Allows the filer to still challenge criminal convictions or sanctions
Summary
Background
A pro se filer, Fred Whitaker, asked the Court for permission to proceed without paying court fees. He has repeatedly filed petitions since 1987. The Court says he filed 24 petitions, including 18 requests for certiorari and 6 extraordinary writs, and all were denied. Earlier this Term the Court warned him and limited a prior sanction to extraordinary writs.
Reasoning
The Court concluded Whitaker’s recent petition is frivolous and appears aimed at evading the prior order. Citing Rule 39.8, which allows denial of fee waivers when a petition is frivolous, the Court refused his request to proceed without fees. The Court extended its earlier sanction and directed the Clerk not to accept any further noncriminal certiorari petitions from him unless he pays the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and files in compliance with Rule 33. The Court gave him until May 8, 1995, to pay fees and submit a proper petition.
Real world impact
The ruling stops this individual from filing more noncriminal petitions in the Supreme Court without paying fees and following the Court’s filing rules. It preserves Court resources by discouraging repetitious, frivolous filings. The order does not prevent him from filing petitions that challenge criminal sanctions; criminal petitions remain allowed.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented. He said a simple denial would have sufficed to conserve the Court’s limited resources and expressed disagreement with extending the sanction.
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?