In re Whitaker

Background

Fred Whitaker, a self-represented litigant, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and asked to proceed without paying court fees under this Court’s Rule 39. His current dispute arises from a civil case in Alameda County claiming $2 in illegal taxes against Lake Merritt Lodge & Residence. Since 1987 he has filed 23 claims, including many petitions for review and several petitions for extraordinary relief, all of which the Court has denied without recorded dissent.

Reasoning

The Court applied Rule 39.8 and concluded that Whitaker’s filings are frivolous and repetitious. The Court denied his request to proceed without fees, allowed him until November 1, 1994 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition that complies with Rule 33, and instructed the Clerk not to accept further petitions for special court orders from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the fee and follows the filing rules. The opinion cites prior cases and explains that denying free filing status helps prevent abuse by repeat, fee-free filings.

Real world impact

The ruling stops Whitaker from filing more free special petitions unless he pays the docketing fee and meets the Court’s filing requirements by the deadline. It limits the Court’s tolerance for repetitious, frivolous filings by self-represented litigants. This decision is procedural, focused on filing rules and access to fee waivers, not on the merits of Whitaker’s underlying $2 claim.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented, reiterating his prior view that the 1991 amendment to Rule 39 was unnecessary and criticizing the Court’s reliance on resource-conservation to single out this petition; he respectfully disagreed with the disposition.