MARTIN
v.
KNOX ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the Court's denial of James L. Martin's petition for a writ of certiorari and sua sponte denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39.8, arguing that while the petition lacked merit and should be denied on that ground alone, it was not frivolous because it raised a genuine conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding whether a district judge's failure to recuse himself is reviewable by mandamus petition or only after final judgment. The Justices contended that the Court should not expend resources distinguishing between frivolous and merely meritless petitions, and that Rule 39.8 should not have been invoked in this case despite their agreement that the underlying recusal motion itself lacked merit.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari should be denied if it lacks merit, without an additional inquiry into whether the petition is frivolous.
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari is not frivolous if it raises a question on which the Courts of Appeals are in conflict.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Opinion of
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Blackmun joins,
respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.
On November 4, 1991, the Court applied its recently amended Rule 39.8 to eight petitions filed by James L. Martin. Instead of simply denying those certiorari petitions on the ground that they lacked merit, the Court denied Martin leave to proceed informa pauperis on the ground that the petitions were repetitive and frivolous. Zatko v. California, ante, p. 16. I dissented from that action, in part, because drawing distinctions between those petitions that are frivolous and those that are merely meritless is a wasteful use of this Court’s resources. The Court should simply deny certiorari once a determination is made that the petition lacks merit; there is no reason for the Court to make an additional inquiry into whether the petition is frivolous and thus the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied instead. The point is illustrated by the Court’s correct disposition of this petition filed by Martin.
The petition is not frivolous because it raises a question on which the Courts of Appeals are in conflict. Compare In re Beard, 811 F. 2d 818, 827 (CA4 1987) (district judge’s failure to disqualify himself can be reviewed by a petition for writ of mandamus); Union Carbide Corp. v. U. S. Cutting Service, Inc., 782 F. 2d 710, 713 (CA7 1986) (same), with Pittsburgh v. Simmons, 729 F. 2d 953, 954 (CA3 1984) (judge’s failure to recuse himself is reviewable only after final judgment); Cleveland v. Krupansky, 619 F. 2d 576, 578 (CA6) (same), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 834 (1980). Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to invoke Rule 39.8 and deny Martin’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. I nevertheless agree that it is proper to deny the certiorari petition because it appears that the underlying recusal motion has no merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992)…ng five petitions outright.2 Two additional petitions for certiorari are before us today, bringing the total number of petitions Martin has filed in the [*3] past year to 11. With the arguable exception of one of these petitions, see Martin v. Knox, 502 U. S. 999 (1991) (Stevens, J., joined by Blackmun, J., respecting denial of certiorari), all of Martin’s filings, including those before us today, have been demonstrably frivolous. In Zatko, we warned that “[fjuture similar filings from [Martin] will merit a…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Beeler v. United States, 449 U.S. 834 (U.S. 1980)
- City of Cleveland v. Krupansky, 449 U.S. 834 (U.S. 1980)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. U.S. Cutting Serv., Inc., 782 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1986)
- In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1987)
- City OF Cleveland v. Honorable Robert B. Krupansky, 619 F.2d 576 (6th Cir. 1980)
- City OF Pittsburgh v. The Honorable Paul A. Simmons, 729 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1984)