In re Sherrills

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Sherrills

741 N.E.2d 145, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1420, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 227

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 24, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

On November 12, 1996, we ordered that the Clerk of this court shall not accept for filing any additional, original actions from Daries Sherrills, unless accompanied by the docket fee and security deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV. Sherrills v. Fuerst (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1437, 671 N.E.2d 1021.

Based on Sherrills’s continued, prolonged pattern of filing repetitious, frivolous appeals in this court and abusing his informa pauperis status in this court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the court that the Clerk of this court shall also not accept for filing any further appeals in this court without Sherrills’s prepaying the fee required by S.Ct.Prae.R. XV, except for direct or delayed appeals from criminal convictions and sentences. Cf., generally, Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals (1992), 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305; Demos v. Storrie (1993), 507 U.S. 290, 113 S.Ct 1231, 122 L.Ed.2d 636; In re Guess (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684. Courts of appeals and trial courts may take similar action to prevent further frivolous filings by Sherrills.

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

On November 12, 1996, we ordered that the Clerk of this court shall not accept for filing any additional, original actions from Daries Sherrills, unless accompanied by the docket fee and security deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV. Sherrills v. Fuerst (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1437, 671 N.E.2d 1021.

Based on Sherrills’s continued, prolonged pattern of filing repetitious, frivolous appeals in this court and abusing his informa pauperis status in this court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the court that the Clerk of this court shall also not accept for filing any further appeals in this court without Sherrills’s prepaying the fee required by S.Ct.Prae.R. XV, except for direct or delayed appeals from criminal convictions and sentences. Cf., generally, Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals (1992), 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305; Demos v. Storrie (1993), 507 U.S. 290, 113 S.Ct 1231, 122 L.Ed.2d 636; In re Guess (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684. Courts of appeals and trial courts may take similar action to prevent further frivolous filings by Sherrills.

In re Sherrills, 741 N.E.2d 145, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1420, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 227 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

741 N.E.2d 145 (In re Sherrills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related