This Court's Rule 39 is amended to provide the Court with some
control over frivolous or malicious
in forma pauperis
filings. Damages and costs are ineffective to deter such filings,
as
in forma pauperis status is conditioned on an affidavit
or declaration that the petitioner is financially unable to pay
fees or post security. The Rule applies only to those filings that
the Court determines would have been denied in any event, and
permits a disposition of the matter without the Court issuing an
order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Rule amended.
PER CURIAM.
We are ordering an amendment to this Court's Rule 39 respecting
proceedings
in forma pauperis.
Filings under our paid docket require a not-insubstantial filing
fee, currently $300, and compliance with our printing requirements.
See Rules 33 and 38. These Rules serve as some
disincentive to frivolous paid filings. Furthermore, we have the
ability to exercise control over the paid docket under Rule 42.2,
which provides for award of "just damages and single or double
costs" in the case of a frivolous filing.
See Hatch v. Reliance
Ins. Co., 474 U.S. 1048 (1986);
Hyde v. Van Wormer,
474 U.S. 992 (1985). These controls are not effective with
reference to proceedings
in forma pauperis. It is vital
that the right to file
in forma pauperis not be encumbered
by those who would abuse the integrity of our process by frivolous
filings, particularly those few persons whose filings are
repetitive with the obvious effect of burdening the office of the
Clerk and other members of the Court staff. In order to preserve
meaningful access to this Court's resources, and to ensure the
integrity of our processes, we find it necessary and advisable to
promulgate this amendment to Rule 39, to provide us some control
over frivolous or malicious
in forma pauperis filings.
Sanctions of damages and costs are ineffective to deter such
filings as
in forma pauperis
Page 500 U. S. 14
status is conditioned on an affidavit or declaration that the
petitioner is financially unable to pay fees or post security.
See 28 U. S. C. § 1915(a) and this Court's Rule 39.1. This
amendment makes clear that to protect itself from abusive filings
the Court may enter orders similar to those entered by the lower
federal courts for almost 100 years pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§
1915(a) and (d), and their predecessors.
See Act of July
20, 1892, ch. 209, § 4, 27 Stat. 252.
The Rule applies only to those filings that the Court determines
would be denied in any event, and permits a disposition of the
matter without the Court issuing an order granting leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States
is amended to add the following:
"39.8 If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari,
jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as
the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a
motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis."
In order to ensure adequate notice to all litigants, the Rule
will become effective on July l, 1991.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
This Court's rules now embrace an invidious distinction. Under
the amendment adopted today, an indigent litigant may be denied a
disposition on the merits of a petition for certiorari,
jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ
following a determination that the filing "is frivolous or
malicious." Strikingly absent from this Court's rules is any
similar provision permitting dismissal of "frivolous or malicious"
filings by paying litigants, even though paying litigants are a
substantial source of these filings.
Page 500 U. S. 15
This Court once had a great tradition: "All men and women are
entitled to their day in Court."
* That guarantee has
now been conditioned on monetary worth. It now will read: "All men
and women are entitled to their day in Court only if they have the
means and the money."
I dissent.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins,
dissenting.
In my opinion, it is neither necessary nor advisable to
promulgate the foregoing amendment to Rule 39. During my years of
service on the Court, I have not detected any significant burden on
the Court, or threat to the integrity of its processes, caused by
the filing of frivolous petitions. It is usually much easier to
decide that a petition should be denied than to decide whether or
not it is frivolous. Moreover, the cost of administering the
amended Rule will probably exceed any tangible administrative
saving. Transcending the clerical interest that supports the Rule
is the symbolic interest in preserving equal access to the Court
for both the rich and the poor. I believe the Court makes a serious
mistake when it discounts the importance of that interest. I
respectfully dissent.
* Our inviolable obligation to treat rich and poor alike is
echoed in the oath taken by each Justice prior to assuming office.
See, e.g., 389 U.S. ix:
"I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and
do equal right to the poor and
to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States according to the
best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the
Constitution and laws of the United States."
(Emphasis added.)