Lowe v. Pogue
Headline: Court denies indigent status and bars a serial filer from most noncriminal appeals unless he pays fees and follows filing rules, limiting his ability to bring further noncriminal petitions.
Holding: The Court denied Lowe in forma pauperis status, required payment and rule-compliant petitions by April 19, 1999, and barred his noncriminal certiorari and extraordinary writ filings unless conditions are met.
- Prevents Lowe from filing noncriminal certiorari or extraordinary writ petitions without paying fees and following form rules.
- Requires Lowe to pay docketing fee and submit compliant petitions by April 19, 1999.
- Directs the Court clerk to refuse noncompliant noncriminal filings from Lowe.
Summary
Background
A pro se litigant named Lowe asked to proceed without paying court fees under Rule 39. The Court denied that request under Rule 39.8. It gave Lowe until April 19, 1999 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to file petitions that follow Rule 33.1. The opinion notes earlier denials in November and earlier this month and cites prior entries: Lowe v. Cantrell and In re Lowe. Before the recent four denials, Lowe had filed 23 petitions described as patently frivolous, bringing his total to 31 frivolous filings. Several additional filings described as patently frivolous remain pending.
Reasoning
The Court concluded Lowe has abused the certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. To stop further waste of resources, the Court ordered the Clerk not to accept more noncriminal certiorari or extraordinary-writ petitions from Lowe unless he pays the docketing fee and files petitions that comply with the Court’s rules. The Court limited its sanction to noncriminal matters and emphasized the order will not prevent Lowe from challenging any criminal sanctions that might be imposed on him.
Real world impact
The ruling directly constrains Lowe’s ability to file new noncriminal petitions in this Court unless he pays fees and follows form rules. The Clerk is instructed to refuse noncriminal filings that do not meet those conditions. The order is procedural and aimed at conserving the Court’s limited resources; it is not a merits decision about any underlying claim.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a short dissent, stating his disagreement and citing reasons earlier discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals and related authorities.
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?