Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee County Mental Health Center
Headline: Repeated frivolous petitioning blocked: Court denies free filing, orders fee and proper form by July 12, 1999, and bars future noncriminal petitions unless requirements are met.
Holding:
- Stops Fertel-Rust from filing noncriminal petitions unless she pays fee and follows rules.
- Conserves Court time by deterring repeated frivolous filings.
- Does not bar criminal challenges or extraordinary writs.
Summary
Background
A pro se petitioner named Fertel-Rust asked the Court to let her proceed without paying fees. The Court denied that request under Rule 39.8 and gave her until July 12, 1999 to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to file a petition that complies with Rule 33.1. The Court also ordered the Clerk not to accept any further certiorari petitions from Fertel-Rust in noncriminal matters unless she pays the fee and follows the filing rules. The opinion notes a long pattern: in the last five years the Court invoked Rule 39.8 four times to deny her free filing, and before those denials she filed three petitions the Court described as patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent, bringing her total number of frivolous filings to eight.
Reasoning
The main question was whether to accept and process Fertel-Rust’s petition without fees. The Court concluded it should not. Citing Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Court treated her repeated filings as an abuse of the certiorari process, denied in forma pauperis status, and imposed a prospective bar on noncriminal filings unless she pays the docketing fee and submits a compliant petition. The Court limited its sanction to noncriminal cases so it would not block her from seeking relief against criminal punishments or filing extraordinary writs.
Real world impact
This order affects Fertel-Rust directly by preventing further noncriminal petitions unless she pays the fee and follows the Court’s filing rules. It aims to conserve the Court’s limited time and resources by deterring repeated frivolous filings. The restriction is not an absolute ban on all access: Fertel-Rust may still challenge criminal convictions or seek special writs if appropriate.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, stating that he dissents for reasons he has previously explained in other cases and citing his prior dissents 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?