Brancato v. Gunn
Headline: Serial pro se filer blocked from bringing noncriminal Supreme Court petitions unless he pays docketing fees and follows filing rules; Court denies his free-filing request as frivolous and limits future noncriminal filings.
Holding:
- Prevents this filer from filing noncriminal petitions unless fees are paid and filings comply.
- Gives the Court power to conserve resources by rejecting frivolous fee-free filings.
- Still allows the filer to seek review of criminal cases.
Summary
Background
A pro se litigant named Braneato asked to proceed without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis) under this Court’s Rule 39. The Court denied that request as frivolous under Rule 39.8, noted that Braneato had previously filed multiple frivolous petitions, and said his latest petition raised his total frivolous filings to eight. The Court gave him until November 2, 1999 to pay the required docketing fees under Rule 38 and to refile in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Reasoning
The core issue was whether to allow fee-free filings from a repeat filer who has abused the certiorari process. The Court invoked Rule 39.8 and relied on the principles discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals to justify denying fee-free status and to bar future filings. The order limits its sanction to noncriminal matters, expressly preserving the petitioner’s ability to seek review of criminal cases.
Real world impact
Practically, the ruling stops Braneato from sending more noncriminal petitions to the Supreme Court unless he pays the docketing fee and follows the Court’s filing rules. The Court explained the limit is meant to protect its limited resources and prioritize meritorious claims. This decision is an order about filing procedure and access, not a final judgment on any underlying legal claims.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, referring to his earlier views in Martin and related cases and respectfully disagreeing with the Court’s action.
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?