In re Kennedy
Headline: Court blocks a frequent filer's free civil filings, denying fee waiver and barring further noncriminal petitions unless he pays fees and follows filing rules, freeing the Court to focus on non-frivolous claims.
Holding: The Court denied a repeat filer's request to proceed without paying fees, barred him from filing further noncriminal certiorari or extraordinary-writ petitions unless he pays the docketing fee and files properly.
- Prevents Kennedy from filing noncriminal petitions without paying the docketing fee and following filing rules.
- Allows the Court to stop repeated frivolous filings and conserve limited resources.
Summary
Background
A pro se filer named Kennedy asked the Court for permission to proceed without paying fees. The Court found that Kennedy had repeatedly filed frivolous petitions: four extraordinary-writ petitions and six certiorari petitions earlier found frivolous and denied. The Court previously denied his fee waiver in October 1998 and called the current filing his twelfth frivolous submission.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Kennedy should be allowed to continue filing without paying the required docketing fee and whether future noncriminal filings from him should be accepted. The Court denied his request to proceed without fees under its rules, gave him until February 1, 1999 to pay the docketing fee and to file correctly, and ordered that the Clerk not accept further noncriminal certiorari or extraordinary-writ petitions from him unless he complies. The Court cited its prior decision in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals as the basis for barring prospective frivolous filings and limited the sanction to noncriminal matters.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that Kennedy cannot continue sending noncriminal petitions to the Court without paying the docketing fee and following filing rules. The order preserves the Court’s limited time and resources for petitioners who have not abused the process. The ruling does not stop Kennedy from challenging criminal sanctions if those arise, because the sanction is limited to noncriminal cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens wrote a short dissent, stating he disagreed for reasons he had previously explained in Martin and related cases, and he respectfully dissented.
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?