Demos v. Storrie
Headline: Court blocks future free filings from a repeat pro se filer unless he pays docketing fees and follows filing rules, curbing repetitive frivolous petitions in noncriminal cases.
Holding: The Court ordered that a repeat pro se filer must pay docketing fees and submit properly formatted petitions, and the Clerk must reject future fee-free noncriminal petitions from him unless he complies.
- Stops this filer from filing fee-free Supreme Court petitions in noncriminal cases unless he pays fees.
- Requires payment of docketing fees and proper petition formatting for future filings by this person.
- Gives the Clerk authority to reject noncompliant petitions from this filer outright.
Summary
Background
Pro se litigant John R. Demos, Jr. has repeatedly filed many fee-free (in forma pauperis) documents with the Court, including 48 filings since the October 1988 Term. Two years earlier the Court had already barred him from fee-free extraordinary-writ filings, and since that order he filed 14 petitions for Supreme Court review. Lower courts had sanctioned him for frivolous filings, and several of his recent petitions were denied or denied leave to proceed without paying fees.
Reasoning
The Court addressed how to stop continued abusive, repetitive filings by a single litigant. Relying on its procedural Rule 39.8, the Court again refused to allow fee-free treatment for Demos’ current petition and gave him until March 29, 1993 to pay the required docketing fees and file a petition that meets the Court’s formatting rules. The Court also ordered the Clerk to reject all future fee-free petitions from Demos in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits petitions that comply with Rule 33. The Court concluded that Demos’ persistent abusive filings justify this sanction.
Real world impact
The order forces this individual to pay fees and follow filing rules before the Court will accept further noncriminal petitions from him. The Clerk is instructed to refuse noncompliant submissions from this filer. This is a procedural sanction focused on repeat abusive filings, not a decision on the merits of any underlying dispute.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented, preferring the Court simply deny such petitions instead of using special procedures and raising questions about possible retroactive application to pending petitions.
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?