Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Shieh v. Kakita

517 U.S. 343

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-04-16
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • directing “the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from [appellant] in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by [Supreme Court] Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with [Supreme Court] Rule 33.1”
  • directing "the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from [appellant] in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by [Supreme Court] Rule 5 38 and submits his petition in compliance with [Supreme Court] Rule 33.1"
  • directing "the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from [appellant] in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee 5 required by [Supreme Court] Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with [Supreme Court] Rule 33.1"
  • prisoner prospectively barred from filing petitions for certiorari in forma pauperis after filing 10 frivolous petitions in less than three years

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shieh v. Kakita. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
25 opinions
SHIEH v. KAKITA,517 U.S. 343(1996)
SHIEHv. KAKITA ET AL.
ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEEDIN FORMAPAUPERIS
Nos. 95-7587, 95-7588, 95-7589.
Decided April 1, 1996fn*
In March 1996, this Court invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner Shieh informa pauperisstatus. To date, he has filed 10 petitions in this Court in less than three years. All were patently frivolous and were denied without recorded dissent.Held:For the reasons discussed inMartin v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals,506 U.S. 1, Shieh is denied leave to proceedin forma pauperisin the instant cases, 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 his Court's Rule 33.1. This order will not prevent Shieh 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.
In these three petitions for certiorari,pro sepetitioner Liang-Houh Shieh requests leave to proceedin forma pauperisunder Rule 39 of this Court. We deny his requests pursuant to Rule 39.8. Shieh is allowed until April 22, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Shieh in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Shieh has abused this Court's certiorari process. In March 1996, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Shiehin forma pauperisstatus. SeeShiehv.State Bar of California,Page 344516 U.S. 1170. To date, Shieh has filed 10 petitions in this Court in less than three years. All have been both patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent.

We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed inMartinv.District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1(1992). Shieh's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will not prevent Shieh 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.
For the reasons I have previously expressed, I respectfully dissent. SeeJonesv.ABC-TV,516 U.S. 363,364(1996) (STEVENS, J., dissenting);Attwoodv.Singletary,516 U.S. 297,298(1996) (STEVENS, J., dissenting);Martinv.Districtof Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1,4(1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting);Zatkov.California,502 U.S. 16,18(1991) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).Page 345
  1. Together with No. 95-7588,Shieh v. United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit,and No. 95-7589,Shieh v. Kriegeret al.,also on motion for leave to proceed informa pauperisto the same court. ↩