ATTWOOD
v.
SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

U.S. | 1996-01-22
No. 95-6710
516 U.S. 297 Supreme Court of the United States (1996) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 133 L. Ed. 2d 721 · 116 S. Ct. 769 · 1996 U.S. LEXIS 704 · SCDB 1995-021
Cited by 14 cases
Topics
Abuse Of Process In Forma Pauperis Writ Of Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Robert Attwood requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Attwood is allowed until February 12,1996, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Attwood in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Attwood has abused this Court’s certiorari process. In November 1995, we twice invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Attwood in forma pauperis status. See Attwood v. Smith and Att-wood v. Palm Beach Post, post, p. 963. At that time, Att-wood had filed seven petitions in this Court during the prior year, and he has filed two since. All were patently frivolous and were denied without recorded dissent.

We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992). Attwood’s abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will not prevent Attwood 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.

Dissent
Justice Stevens,

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

Because experience with the administration of orders like the one the Court is entering in this case today has merely reinforced my conviction that our “limited resources” would be used more effectively by simply denying petitions that are manifestly frivolous, I respectfully dissent. Perhaps one day reflection will persuade my colleagues to return to “the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court’s history prior to its unprecedented decisions in In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), and In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam).” See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1999)
    …es, and WHEREAS, under current law frivolous inmate lawsuits are dismissible by the courts only after considerable expenditure of precious taxpayer and judicial resources.... Ch. 96-106, preamble, at 92-93, Laws of Fla. . See Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 297, 116 S.Ct. 769, 133 L.Ed.2d 721 (1996) (requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters after filing nine frivolous petitions within two years); Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993)…
  • Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2000)
    …r other litigants from filing frivolous petitions” and that “[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources.” Id. See also Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 297, 116 S.Ct. 769, 133 L.Ed.2d 721 (1996) (requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters after filing nine frivolous petitions within two years); Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993)…
  • Martin v. State, 833 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2002)
    …of sanction since 1995, and no court has found them to be improper. In fact, the year after this Court barred Attwood, the [*760] United States Supreme Court also imposed sanctions on him for his frivolous filings. See, e.g., Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 297, 116 S.Ct. 769, 133 L.Ed.2d 721 (1996).4 Thus, we conclude that neither Procup nor any of the United States Supreme Court’s cases preclude this Court from imposing such a sanction. This Court ordered Martin to show cause why he should not be sancti…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw