Head v. Thornburg

Background

Joseph Head, an indigent petitioner, asked the Court to proceed without paying the usual filing fees. The Court denied that request under its Rule 39.8 and gave him until March 23, 1992 to pay the required docketing fee and to submit a petition that complies with Rule 33. The action arose from a motion tied to the Fourth Circuit.

Reasoning

The immediate question was whether Head should be allowed to proceed without fees. The Court invoked Rule 39.8, which allows denying fee-free status when a petition is frivolous or malicious. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice Blackmun, emphasized earlier uses of Rule 39.8 against frequent filers and said Head is different because he had filed only one prior petition. Stevens argued the Court’s order represents an unexplained expansion of the Rule and stated he would have allowed Head to proceed without fees and then denied review on the merits.

Real world impact

As ordered, Head must pay the docketing fee and meet the Court’s petition requirements by the deadline or risk losing the chance to continue. The ruling enforces the Court’s procedural limits on fee-free filings, while the dissent raises concerns about inconsistent application. This order addresses filing status and procedures and does not resolve the underlying merits of Head’s claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented, stating the Court’s use of Rule 39.8 here is unexplained and contrasting Head’s single prior filing with prior frequent filers.