In re Bauer
Headline: Court denies a self-represented litigant free filing, calls his petitions frivolous, and bars further noncriminal filings unless he pays fees and follows the Court’s filing rules.
Holding: The Court refused the self-represented litigant’s request to proceed without fees as frivolous, required payment of docketing fees and compliance with filing rules by November 8, 1999, and barred further noncriminal petitions unless satisfied.
- Prevents the litigant from filing noncriminal petitions without paying docketing fees and following Court filing rules.
- Requires payment of docketing fees and correct petition forms by November 8, 1999.
- Leaves open the right to challenge criminal sanctions despite the filing bar.
Summary
Background
Bauer, a man who represents himself, asked the Court for permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He sought leave under the Court’s filing rules, but the Court found his request frivolous because he has repeatedly filed meritless petitions. The opinion recounts prior filings, a prior denial invoking the Court’s rule, and specific deadlines and requirements imposed on Bauer.
Reasoning
The core question was whether Bauer should be allowed to continue filing without paying fees or following the Court’s form rules. The Court decided his recent and prior filings were frivolous and abusive of the Court’s processes. It denied his request to proceed without fees, gave him until November 8, 1999 to pay required docketing fees and to file a petition that complies with the Court’s form rule, and ordered the Clerk not to accept further noncriminal petitions from him unless those conditions are met.
Real world impact
Practically, the order stops Bauer from submitting new noncriminal petitions to the Court unless he first pays the docketing fee and follows the Court’s filing rules. The restriction is limited to noncriminal matters and does not prevent him from asking the Court to review any criminal penalties he might face. The Court explained the goal is to preserve limited Court resources for other petitioners.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, stating he respectfully disagrees and referring to reasons he gave in an earlier dissent in a related case.
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?