Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Background

Lorenzo Arteaga, representing himself, asked permission to file a Supreme Court petition without paying the filing fee (in forma pauperis) to seek review of a Ninth Circuit decision. The Ninth Circuit had affirmed a district court dismissal with prejudice because Arteaga failed to amend his complaints as instructed. The Court’s order notes Arteaga filed 20 petitions with the Court (16 in the past two Terms), that earlier in 1997 the Court denied him in forma pauperis status under a rule, and that his latest filings alleged innocence, constitutional violations, and conspiracies but did not respond to the district court’s reasons for dismissal.

Reasoning

The core question was whether Arteaga should be allowed to file without paying the docketing fee. The Court denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis, gave him until March 16, 1998 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit a petition that follows Rule 33.1, and ordered the Clerk not to accept any further certiorari petitions in noncriminal matters from him unless those conditions are met. The Court explained this bar on future fee-waived filings is entered for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, Arteaga cannot file further noncriminal petitions in this Court without paying the docketing fee and meeting filing requirements. The order targets his repeated, unsuccessful filings and lets the Clerk refuse future fee-waived, noncompliant petitions from him.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented, saying he respectfully disagrees for reasons he has previously stated in similar cases.