Vey v. Clinton
Headline: Court denies a pro se woman’s request to file for free, blocks her future noncriminal certiorari petitions unless she pays fees and follows court rules, and sets a deadline to comply.
Holding: The Court denied the petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, barred further noncriminal certiorari petitions from her unless she pays fees and follows Court rules, and set a June 30, 1997 deadline to comply.
- Prevents her from filing future noncriminal certiorari petitions without fees and rule compliance.
- Bars further free (in forma pauperis) filings by this litigant in noncriminal matters.
- Gives a June 30, 1997 deadline to pay fees and file a compliant petition.
Summary
Background
Pro se petitioner Eileen Vey asked the Court for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (to file without paying fees) so she could seek review of a Third Circuit decision that had dismissed her appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Her underlying claims accused many public figures and private people of civil-rights and RICO violations; the Court describes those claims as patently frivolous. The opinion notes that in the past 6% years she has filed 26 submissions here, all denied, and that an earlier order eight weeks ago already told the Clerk not to accept extraordinary writs from her unless she paid required fees.
Reasoning
The main question was whether to let her proceed without fees and accept further filings. The Court concluded her filings are abusive and that the prior restriction did not stop her conduct. The Court therefore denied her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, barred the Clerk from accepting any future petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters from her unless she first complies with the Court’s rules, and relied on the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Real world impact
Practically, this order prevents this individual from filing new noncriminal petitions here for free. She is allowed until June 30, 1997 to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit a petition that complies with Rule 33.1. This is a procedural restriction on filings, not a decision on the merits of the underlying claims.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, stating his disagreement and citing earlier dissenting views in Martin and related cases.
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?