In re Whitaker
Headline: Court denies a longtime pro se filer’s request to proceed without fees, requires payment of the docketing fee and limits future unpaid extraordinary writ filings unless filing rules are followed.
Holding: The Court denied the pro se petitioner’s request to proceed without fees, ordered him to pay the docketing fee and file a proper prohibition petition by November 1, 1994, and barred further unpaid extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters.
- Requires the petitioner to pay the docketing fee to proceed.
- Allows the Clerk to refuse unpaid extraordinary-writ petitions in noncriminal matters.
- Discourages repetitive, frivolous filings by pro se litigants.
Summary
Background
A pro se litigant, Fred Whitaker, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and asked to proceed without paying fees. The underlying dispute involves a civil suit in Alameda County against Lake Merritt Lodge & Residence about $2 in alleged illegal taxes. Since 1987 Whitaker has repeatedly filed many claims, including numerous petitions for certiorari and several extraordinary-writ petitions, and the Court has previously denied his petitions.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Whitaker should be allowed to proceed without paying fees and whether the Court should restrict his future filings because of repetitive, frivolous petitions. Relying on Rule 39.8 and prior decisions, the Court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, gave Whitaker until November 1, 1994 to pay the docketing fee and submit a petition for a writ of prohibition following the Court’s filing rules, and directed the Clerk not to accept further unpaid extraordinary-writ petitions in noncriminal matters unless he pays the fee and follows Rule 33.
Real world impact
The ruling directly limits Whitaker’s ability to file unpaid extraordinary-writ petitions and authorizes the Clerk to refuse such filings unless fees are paid and filing rules are met. The order is procedural and targets repetitive filings; it does not resolve the merits of the underlying $2 tax dispute. The Court limited its sanction to extraordinary writs rather than broader restrictions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented, criticizing a 1991 Rule 39 amendment and objecting to singling out this petition on resource-conservation grounds, and he stated he would continue to oppose the Court’s related dispositions.
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?