Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

BROWN v. WILLIAMS, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)

522 U.S. 3

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1997-10-20
Topic
general

BROWN v. WILLIAMS, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) CARSON LYNN BROWN v. R. WILLIAMS et al. ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. 97-5370.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed BROWN v. WILLIAMS, 522 U.S. 3 (1997). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

BROWN v. WILLIAMS,522 U.S. 3(1997)
CARSON LYNN BROWNv. R. WILLIAMS et al.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
No. 97-5370.
Decided October 20, 1997
Pro sepetitioner seeks leave to proceedin forma pauperisso that he may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit. Since 1994, when this Court invoked its Rule 39.8 to deny himin formapauperisstatus,Brownv.Brown,513 U.S. 1040, he has filed eight petitions, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent.Held:Petitioner's motion to proceedin forma pauperisis denied. For the reasons discussed inMartinv.District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1, he is also barred from filing any further certiorari petitions in non-criminal matters unless he first pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Motion denied.
PER CURIAM.
Pro sepetitioner Carson Lynn Brown seeks leave to proceedin formapauperisin order that he may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to pay the required filing fee.

We deny petitioner leave to proceedin forma pauperis. He is allowed until November 10, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fee required by this Court's Rule38(a) and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For thePage 2reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in non-criminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Petitioner has a history of abusing this Court's certiorari process. In 1994, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitionerin forma pauperisstatus.Brownv.Brown,513 U.S. 1040(1994). Undeterred by this action, petitioner has continued filing frivolous petitions with this Court. To date, petitioner has filed eight petitions over the last eight years, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent. In the instant petition, Brown alleges that certain prison officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights by,inter alia, denying him access to the courts and sabotaging his laundry, and that the District Judge below was biased against him as an "African Jew." These claims are patently frivolous.

We enter this order barring prospectivein forma pauperisfilings by petitioner for the reasons discussed inMartinv.District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals,506 U.S. 1(1992)(per curiam). Because petitioner has limited his abuse of the certiorari process to non-criminal cases, we limit our sanction accordingly.It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, seeMartinv.District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals,506 U.S. 1,4(1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.Page 3