Brancato v. Gunn

528 U.S. 1, 120 S. Ct. 5
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 12, 1999
DocketNo. 98-9913
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 528 U.S. 1 (Brancato v. Gunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brancato v. Gunn, 528 U.S. 1, 120 S. Ct. 5 (1999).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Braneato seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Braneato is allowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Braneato in noneriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Braneato has abused this Court’s certiorari process. On June 7, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Braneato in [2]*2forma 'pauperis status with respect to a petition for certio-rari. See Brancato v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 526 U. S. 1157. Prior to the Rule 39.8 denial, Braneato had filed six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Braneato’s total number of frivolous filings to eight.

We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Brancato’s abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal eases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Braneato from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Case
M.D. Louisiana, 2026
Aliff v. Vervent, Inc.
S.D. California, 2025
(HC) Harris v. Frauenheim
E.D. California, 2024
Olsen v. Becerra
E.D. Washington, 2022
Killens v. Anglea
N.D. California, 2020
People v. Lopez CA2/8
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Joe Armenta v. Scott Kernan
Ninth Circuit, 2018
Com. v. Stansbury, K.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
Nowakowski v. New York
835 F.3d 210 (Second Circuit, 2016)
People v. Shipp
2015 IL App (2d) 130587 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2015)
City of Lakewood v. Koenig
Washington Supreme Court, 2014
Larry Berring v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
ROK Builders v. 2010-1 SFG et al.
2013 DNH 095 (D. New Hampshire, 2013)
United States v. Ardelle Dunlap, Jr.
719 F.3d 865 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Arnette
329 F. App'x 714 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Hollings v. TransactTools, Inc.
128 F. App'x 820 (Second Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
528 U.S. 1, 120 S. Ct. 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brancato-v-gunn-scotus-1999.