IN RE SASSOWER
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.
The Court denied the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the Clerk not to accept future non-criminal petitions from him unless docketing fees are paid and petitions comply with rules.
Pro se petitioner George Sassower, who has a history of filing numerous frivolous petitions, requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He has 10 f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 39.8 cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner George Sassower requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 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 Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraordinary writs 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 granted in forma pauperis status to file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent.* During the last four months, Sassower has suddenly increased his filings. He currently has 10 petitions pending before this Court — all of them patently frivolous.
Although we have not previously denied Sassower in forma pauperis status pursuant to Rule 39.8, we think it appropriate to enter an order pursuant to Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992). In both In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam), and In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), we entered orders similar to this one without having previously denied petitioners’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39.8. For the important reasons discussed in Martin, Sindram, and McDonald, 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, how ever, 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.
*
See Sassower v. New York, 499 U. S. 966 (1991) (certiorari); In re Sassower, 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Honorable Paul Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…eral cases since that subsection was added: In re Anderson, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332, reh’g denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2671, 129 L.Ed.2d 807 (1994); Day v. Day, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); In re Sassower, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2, 126 L.Ed.2d 6 (1993); In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 111 S.Ct. 1569, 114 L.Ed.2d 20 (1991). In each of these cases, the court directed the clerk not to accept certain categories of new cases from the individuals identified unless the proper fee is paid…
-
Attwood v. State, 660 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…veral cases since that subsection was added: In re Anderson, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332, reh’g denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2671, 129 L.Ed.2d 807 (1994); Day v. Day, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); In re Sassower, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2, 126 L.Ed.2d 6 (1993); In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 111 S.Ct. 1569, 114 L.Ed.2d 20 (1991). In each of these cases, the court directed the clerk not to accept certain categories of new cases from the individuals identified unless the proper fee is paid…
-
Lowery v. The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan, 650 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ses since that subsection [*115] was added: In re Anderson, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332, reh’g denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2671, 129 L.Ed.2d 807 (1994); Day v. Day, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); In re Sassower, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2, 126 L.Ed.2d 6 (1993); In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 111 S.Ct. 1569, 114 L.Ed.2d 20 (1991). In each of these eases, the court directed the clerk not to accept certain categories of new cases from the individuals identified unless the proper fee is paid…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992)
- In re McDONALD, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989)
- In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1991)
- McCroskey v. Lockhart, 493 U.S. 979 (U.S. 1989)
- In re Amend, 498 U.S. 1081 (U.S. 1991)
- Freeman v. Pitts, 498 U.S. 1081 (U.S. 1991)
- Curry v. United States, 498 U.S. 1094 (U.S. 1991)
- Horton v. United States, 498 U.S. 1094 (U.S. 1991)
- In re Bauer, 499 U.S. 904 (U.S. 1991)
- Doe v. Garrett, 499 U.S. 904 (U.S. 1991)