Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee County Mental Health Center
Headline: Court denies fee waiver and bars a serial filer's noncriminal petitions unless she pays the docketing fee and files papers that meet the Court’s rules after repeated frivolous filings.
Holding: The Court denied Fertel-Rust’s request to proceed without fees, required payment and proper petition compliance by July 12, 1999, and barred further noncriminal filings unless she pays and complies.
- Denies in forma pauperis status and requires docketing fee payment.
- Bars new noncriminal cert petitions unless fee paid and petition complies with rules.
- Permits challenges to criminal sanctions and extraordinary writs to proceed.
Summary
Background
A pro se petitioner named Fertel-Rust asked to proceed without paying fees (in forma pauperis) under this Court’s Rule 39. The Court, acting per curiam, denied that request under Rule 39.8, gave her until July 12, 1999 to pay the required docketing fee and to submit a petition that follows Rule 33.1, and instructed the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal petitions from her unless she complies. The order notes four prior denials under Rule 39.8 in the last five years and three earlier petitions the Court called patently frivolous, bringing the total to eight frivolous filings.
Reasoning
The Court concluded Fertel-Rust has abused the certiorari process and that limiting her future noncriminal filings is necessary to protect the Court’s resources. The opinion cites Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals as the basis for imposing a prospective filing bar limited to noncriminal matters. The order therefore denies fee-free filing, requires fee payment and procedural compliance, and bars new noncriminal petitions unless those conditions are met. The Court also made clear the sanction is limited and does not stop criminal challenges or extraordinary writ filings.
Real world impact
Practically, Fertel-Rust cannot file new noncriminal petitions here unless she pays the docketing fee and follows Rule 33.1 procedures by the deadline. The Clerk is directed to reject future noncriminal cert petitions from her that do not meet those conditions. This is a procedural order aimed at managing court resources rather than a decision on the merits of her underlying claims.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissenting statement, saying he respectfully dissents and citing earlier dissents he wrote in Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison and Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
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?