Shieh v. Kakita
Headline: Court bars a repeat pro se filer from filing noncriminal Supreme Court petitions unless he pays fees and follows filing rules, denying free filing and limiting access to stop repeated frivolous petitions.
Holding:
- Blocks petitioner from filing noncriminal Supreme Court petitions without paying fees and following petition rules.
- Encourages Court to reject repetitive frivolous filings and preserve limited judicial resources.
- Leaves petitioner able to seek relief in criminal cases.
Summary
Background
A pro se litigant, Liang-Houh Shieh, filed three petitions asking to proceed without paying fees under this Court’s Rule 39. The Court denied those requests under Rule 39.8, gave Shieh until April 22, 1996 to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit petitions that follow Rule 33.1, and directed the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal petitions from him unless he complies.
Reasoning
The Court concluded that Shieh has abused the certiorari process by filing many patently frivolous petitions—ten in less than three years—and therefore refused to let him proceed for free. Citing prior authority, the Court limited its sanction to noncriminal matters so as not to block any future challenges to criminal sanctions, and explained the order is meant to protect the Court’s limited resources.
Real world impact
The order stops this particular litigant from filing more noncriminal petitions at the Court without paying fees and following filing rules. It signals that repeat, frivolous filings can be rejected and that the Court will impose filing conditions to preserve its docket. This is an administrative order, not a decision on the merits of any underlying case, and it leaves criminal petitions available.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent saying he disagrees for reasons he has stated in earlier opinions, and he cited several of his prior dissents for support.
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?