Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a US Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process.[1] Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid.[2] The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.[3]
| Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided November 2, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals |
| Docket no. | 92-5584 |
| Citations | 506 U.S. 1 (more) 113 S. Ct. 397; 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 |
| Holding | |
| Petitioner is not entitled to file non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions for writ of certiorari, and must file all such petitions in compliance with Court rules and pay for them. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Blackmun |
James Martin was a serial abuser of the court’s certiorari process; in the past decade following the court’s per curium opinion, Martin filed 45 petitions relating to being incarcerated for an unrelated offense, and the last 15 petitions for the prior two years were dismissed under the court’s rule 39.8.[4] Although the case theoretically applies to only the Supreme Court itself, it has become a common procedural tool against certain abusive petitioners on the in forma pauperis docket, particularly those who repeatedly petition similar frivolous arguments within several years, averaging around 2-3 petitioners per order list.
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1992) (per curiam).
- ^ Martin, 506 U.S. at 3 (per curiam).
- ^ Martin, 506 U.S. at 4 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
- ^ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/1
External links
edit- Text of Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |