JONES v. ABC-TV Et Al.
Headline: Court bars a frequent self-represented filer from submitting more noncriminal requests for Supreme Court review unless he pays required fees and follows filing rules, after finding dozens of past filings frivolous and denied
Holding: The Court denied Jones permission to proceed without fees, ordered payment and petition compliance by March 18, 1996, and barred future noncriminal filings unless he follows the rules.
- Prevents Jones from filing noncriminal Supreme Court petitions without paying fees and following filing rules.
- Requires payment of the docketing fee by March 18, 1996 or compliance before filing.
- Allows the Court to filter out repeat frivolous filings and conserve its limited resources.
Summary
Background
Pro se litigant Sylvester Jones asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The Court noted he had filed over 25 petitions, many called patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent, and that at least two petitions remained pending. The Court previously invoked Rule 39.8 against him in October 1992 and has done so multiple times since.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Jones should be allowed to continue filing without paying fees and without complying with the Court’s petition rules. The Court found Jones had abused the Court’s process by repeatedly filing frivolous noncriminal petitions. It therefore denied his request to proceed without fees, gave him until March 18, 1996 to pay the required docketing fee and fix his petition, and directed the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal petitions from him unless he complies with the fee and filing requirements.
Real world impact
The order limits Jones’s ability to file noncriminal Supreme Court review requests unless he pays the docketing fee and follows the Court’s petition form rules. The sanction is limited to noncriminal matters and does not stop him from challenging criminal sanctions. The Court said the restriction will help it devote limited resources to petitioners who have not abused the process.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, stating disagreement and referring to his prior dissents in similar cases.
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?