Prunty v. Brooks

Background

Prunty is a pro se litigant who asked to proceed without paying court fees under Rule 39. The Court denied that request as frivolous under Rule 39.8 and noted that Prunty has repeatedly filed meritless petitions. The Court said he previously filed eight frivolous petitions that were denied without recorded dissent and that the current filing brings the total to ten. The opinion refers to an earlier April 19, 1999 order and to Prunty v. Holschuh.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether to allow this petitioner to use the Court’s free-filing process and whether further filings should be accepted. It concluded the filings were abusive and denied the request as frivolous, relied on Rule 39.8, and cited Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals as justification. To conserve resources and prevent repeated abuse, the Court barred future noncriminal certiorari petitions from Prunty unless he pays the Rule 38 docketing fee and follows Rule 33.1 filing requirements, but limited the sanction to noncriminal matters.

Real world impact

As a practical result, Prunty cannot submit new noncriminal petitions to the Court without paying fees and meeting filing standards; he still may petition to challenge criminal sanctions. The Court gave him until November 2, 1999 to pay fees and bring his current petition into compliance. The order is procedural and affects access to the Court rather than the merits of any underlying case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, stating disagreement and referring to his earlier views in Martin.