In Re Amendment to Rule 39

500 U.S. 13
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 13, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 500 U.S. 13 (In Re Amendment to Rule 39) 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
In Re Amendment to Rule 39, 500 U.S. 13 (1991).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We are ordering an amendment to this Court’s Rule 39 respecting proceedings informa 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 informa pau-[14]*14peris 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 informa 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 informa pauperis.”

In order to ensure adequate notice to all litigants, the Rule will become effective on July 1, 1991.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Lopez v. United States
Federal Circuit, 2025
Brazil v. Menard, Inc.
D. South Dakota, 2022
Perry v. United States
Federal Claims, 2020
Winsett v. McDonald
611 F. App'x 710 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
James Blakely v. Robert Wards
738 F.3d 607 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
In Re Telfair
745 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. New Jersey, 2010)
Colida v. Panasonic Corp. of North America
374 F. App'x 37 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States
67 F.3d 1080 (Third Circuit, 1995)
Deutsch v. United States
Third Circuit, 1995
In re Whitaker
513 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1994)
In Re Anderson
511 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Zatko v. California
502 U.S. 16 (Supreme Court, 1991)
In Re Amendment to Rule 39
500 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
500 U.S. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendment-to-rule-39-scotus-1991.