In re Madura

Supreme Court

In re Madura

137 S. Ct. 88, 196 L. Ed. 2d 205, 85 U.S.L.W. 3148, 2016 WL 3018622, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4992

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 3, 2016·No. No. 15–9506.·Published

Opinion

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (per curiam ).

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

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (per curiam ).

In re Madura, 137 S. Ct. 88, 196 L. Ed. 2d 205, 85 U.S.L.W. 3148, 2016 WL 3018622, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4992 (U.S. 2016).

Pincite

137 S. Ct. 88 (In re Madura) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related