Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Attwood v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

516 U.S. 297

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-01-22
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters after filing nine frivolous petitions within two years
  • after multiple frivolous filings by the appellant, appellant enjoined from filing any further civil appeals until monetary sanctions are paid, and unless a district court judge certifies that his claim is not frivolous
  • due to Attwood’s abuse of the “Court’s certiorari process,” Supreme Court “direct[ed] the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from [him] in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Attwood v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
ATTWOOD v. SINGLETARY,516 U.S. 297(1996)
ATTWOODv. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEEDIN FORMA
PAUPERIS
No. 95-6710.
Decided January 22, 1996
In November 1995, this Court twice invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner Attwood in forma pauperis status. All seven petitions he had filed at that time and the two he has filed since were patently frivolous and were denied without recorded dissent.Held:For the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1, Attwood is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule33. This order will not prevent Attwood from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed against him, but it will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused the certiorari process.

Motion denied.
PER CURIAM.
Pro sepetitioner Robert Attwood requests leave to proceedin formapauperisunder Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Attwood is allowed until February 12, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Attwood in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Attwood has abused this Court's certiorari process. In November 1995, we twice invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Attwoodin forma pauperisstatus. SeeAttwoodv.SmithandAttwoodv.Palm Beach Post,post, p. 963. At that time, Attwood had filed seven petitions in this Court during the priorPage 298year, and he has filed two since. All were patently frivolous and were denied without recorded dissent.

We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed inMartinv.District of Columbia Court ofAppeals,506 U.S. 1(1992). Attwood's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will not prevent Attwood from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed against him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
Because experience with the administration of orders like the one the Court is entering in this case today has merely reinforced my conviction that our "limited resources" would be used more effectively by simply denying petitions that are manifestly frivolous, I respectfully dissent. Perhaps one day reflection will persuade my colleagues to return to "the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court's history prior to its unprecedented decisions inIn re McDonald,489 U.S. 180(1989)(percuriam), andIn re Sindram,498 U.S. 177(1991)(per curiam)." SeeMartinv.District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1,4(1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).Page 299