In re Kennedy
Headline: Court blocks future noncriminal filings from repeat frivolous filer, denies fee waiver, and requires payment and proper petition format before accepting new filings to protect Court resources.
Holding: The Court denied Kennedy’s request to proceed without paying fees, refused in forma pauperis status, and barred future noncriminal filings unless he pays the docketing fee and complies with filing rules.
- Denies fee waiver and requires docketing fee payment and proper filing to proceed.
- Bars future noncriminal petitions from this filer unless fees paid and rules followed.
- Leaves ability to challenge criminal sanctions intact; sanction limited to noncriminal cases.
Summary
Background
Kennedy, an individual who files without a lawyer, asked to proceed without paying the docketing fee. The Court notes he had previously filed four extraordinary-writ petitions and six petitions for review, all described as patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent, and that the current filing was his twelfth frivolous submission.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether to allow Kennedy to proceed without paying fees and whether to accept more noncriminal filings from him. It concluded he had abused the Court’s processes, denied his request to proceed without paying the docketing fee under Rule 39.8, and required payment and compliance with filing rules by February 1, 1999. The Court also ordered the Clerk not to accept any further noncriminal petitions from Kennedy unless he pays the docketing fee and files in compliance with Rule 33.1. The sanction is limited to noncriminal matters and the Court cited Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals as its supporting authority.
Real world impact
The order stops this person from filing new noncriminal petitions in the Supreme Court unless he pays fees and follows procedural rules. It is meant to preserve Court resources by preventing repeated frivolous submissions. The order does not bar him from challenging criminal sanctions and is a procedural restriction rather than a ruling on the merits of any case.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, expressing disagreement and referring to earlier dissenting views in Martin.
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?