Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

In Re Sassower

510 U.S. 4

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1993-10-12
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that “the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under 6 § 1346(b) for constitutional tort claims”
  • requiring Sassower to prepay the docket fee and print his petitions in all future cases
  • “The order ... will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.”
  • “Because a very slight privacy interest would suffice to outweigh the [virtually nonexistent] public interest, we need not be exact in our quantification of the privacy interest.”
  • “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in 6 nature.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In Re Sassower. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
57 opinions
IN RE SASSOWER,510 U.S. 4(1993)
IN RE SASSOWER
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
No. 92-8933
Decided October 12, 1993fn*
In the three years prior to this Term,pro sepetitioner Sassower had filed 11 petitions. However, in the last four months, he has suddenly increased his filings and now has 10 petitions pending before this Court, all of them patently frivolous.Held:Sassower is denied leave to proceed informa pauperisin the instant cases, pursuant to this Court's Rule 39.8, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraordinary writs from him in noncriminal matters, unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule33. For the important reasons discussed inMartin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1,In re Sindram,498 U.S. 177, andIn re McDonald,489 U.S. 180, the Court feels compelled to enter this order, which will allow the Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who, unlike Sassower, have not abused the Court's process.

Motions denied.
PER CURIAM.
Pro sepetitioner George Sassower requests leave to proceedin formapauperisunder Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Sassower is allowed until November 2, 1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraordinaryPage 5writs from Sassower in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Prior to this Term, Sassower had filed 11 petitions in this Court over the last three years. Although Sassower was grantedin forma pauperisstatus to file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent.fn*During the last four months, Sassower has suddenly increased his filings. He currently has 10 petitions pending before this Cour — all of them patently frivolous.

Although we have not previously denied Sassowerin forma pauperisstatus pursuant to Rule 39.8, we think it appropriate to enter an order pursuant toMartin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,506 U.S. 1(1992). In bothIn re Sindram,498 U.S. 177(1991) (per curiam), andIn re McDonald,489 U.S. 180(1989) (per curiam), we entered orders similar to this one without having previously denied petitioners' motions to proceedin forma pauperisunder Rule 39.8. For the important reasons discussed inMartin, Sindram, andMcDonald, we feel compelled to enter the order today barring prospective filings from Sassower.

Sassower's abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Sassower from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order,Page 6however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.It is so ordered.

JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GINSBURG took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion in No. 93-5252.Page 7
  1. Together with No. 92-8934,Sassower v. Mead Data Central Inc.et al.,No. 92-9228,Sassower v. Crites et al.,No. 93-5045,Sassower v. Kriendler Relkin et al.,No. 93-5127,Sassower v.Feltman et al.,No. 93-5128,Sassower v. Puccini Clothes et al.,No. 93-5129,Sassower v. A. R. Fuels, Inc., et al.,No. 93-5252,Sassower v. Reno,No. 3-5358,Sassower v. Abrams, Attorney Generalof New York,and No. 93-5596,In re Sassower,also on motions for leave to proceed informa pauperis. ↩
  2. Page 5See Sassower v. New York,499 U.S. 966(1991) (certiorari);In reSassower,499 U.S. 935(1991) (mandamus/prohibition);In re Sassower,499 U.S. 935(1991) (mandamus/prohibition);Sassower v. Mahoney,498 U.S. 1108(1991);In re Sassower,499 U.S. 904(1991) (mandamus/prohibition);In re Sassower,498 U.S. 1081(1991) (habeas corpus);In re Sassower,498 U.S. 1081(1991) (mandamus/prohibition);Sassower v. United States Court of Appeals for D.C. Cir.,498 U.S. 1094(1991) (certiorari);Sassower v. Brieant,498 U.S. 1094(1991) (certiorari);Sassower v. Thornburgh,498 U.S. 1036(1991) (certiorari);Sassower v. Dillon,493 U.S. 979(1989) (certiorari). ↩