Attwood v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Headline: Court limits a serial filer's free filings, denying free status and barring noncriminal petitions unless fees are paid and proper filing rules are followed.
Holding: The Court denied the request to proceed without paying fees and ordered that the Clerk refuse any further noncriminal petitions from this serial filer unless he pays the docket fee and files correctly.
- Blocks future free noncriminal petitions unless fee is paid and filing rules are met.
- Gives the Court a way to stop repeat frivolous filings and conserve limited resources.
- Does not stop petitions challenging criminal sanctions.
Summary
Background
A pro se litigant, Robert Attwood, repeatedly filed petitions with the Court and sought permission to proceed without paying fees. The Court says Attwood filed many petitions in the prior year, most were patently frivolous, and earlier in November 1995 the Court twice denied him free status. The underlying case caption names a state corrections official, but the central dispute here is about Attwood’s pattern of filings and how the Court should respond.
Reasoning
The core question was how the Court should handle a serial filer who abuses the petition process. The Court denied Attwood’s request to proceed without paying fees and ordered the Clerk not to accept any more noncriminal petitions from him unless he pays the docketing fee and files papers that comply with the Court’s filing rules. The Court explained this step as a way to stop abuse of the petition process and to let the Court focus its limited resources on other petitioners. The Court limited the order to noncriminal matters and noted it would not stop Attwood from seeking review of criminal sanctions.
Real world impact
Practically, Attwood cannot bring further noncriminal cases to the Court for free unless he follows the fee and filing rules. The order is an administrative sanction aimed at curbing repeat frivolous filings and preserving the Court’s time. The ruling is procedural, not a decision on any of Attwood’s underlying claims, and affected filings could change if he pays fees and complies with rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the Court should instead simply deny manifestly frivolous petitions and preserve broader open access to the Court, criticizing prior administrative restrictions.
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?