Attwood v. Singletary, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 516 U.S. 297 (1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Attwood v. Singletary, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 516 U.S. 297 (1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shieh v. Kakita (scotus, 1996-04-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shieh v. Kakita (2×)
SCOTUS · 1996 · confidence medium
See Jones v. ABC—TV, 516 U. S. 363, 364 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U. S. 297, 298 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) (Ste- vens, J.,dissenting); Zatko v. California, 502 U. S. 16, 18 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
examined Cited "see" Vickson v. Singletary (3×)
Fla. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
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) (requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari after filing 27 petitions within nine years); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 , 113 S.Ct. 397 , 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari in noncrimina…
examined Cited "see" State v. D'AMARIO (3×)
R.I. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Martin, 506 U.S. at 3 , 113 S.Ct. at 398 , 121 L.Ed.2d at 308 (limiting petitioner’s sanction to noncriminal cases because petitioner’s abuse of the writ of certiorari occurred solely in noncriminal eases), and Attwood, 516 U.S. at 298 , 116 S.Ct. at 770 , 133 L.Ed.2d at 723 (same).
discussed Cited "see" JONES v. ABC-TV Et Al.
SCOTUS · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U.S. ----, ----, 116 S.Ct. 769, 770 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1996) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 4 , 113 S.Ct. 397, 398 , 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. 16, 18 , 112 S.Ct. 355, 356-57 , 116 L.Ed.2d 293 (1991) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
discussed Cited "see" Morris v. Brown (2×)
Vet. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Attwood v. Singletary, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 769 , 133 L.Ed.2d 721 (1996) (due to Attwood’s abuse of the “Court’s certiorari process,” Supreme Court “direct[ed] the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from [him] in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38”).
examined Cited "see, e.g." In Re Telfair (3×)
D.N.J. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 297 , 116 S.Ct. 769, 769 , 133 L.Ed.2d 721 (1996) (per cnriam) (ten petitions in one year); In re Sassower, 510 U.S. 4, 4 , 114 S.Ct. 2 , 126 L.Ed.2d 6 (1993) (per curiam) (eleven petitions in three years, plus ten more during 1993); Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 2 , 114 S.Ct. 4 , 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (per curiam) (twenty-seven petitions in nine years).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Martin v. State (3×)
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
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.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Martin v. State (3×)
Fla. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
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) (requiring petitioner to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari after filing 27 petitions within nine years); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 , 113 S.Ct. 397 , 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (requiring James Martin to pay docketing fees for petitions for certiorari in non…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Attwood
v.
Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
95-6710.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 1996.
516 U.S. 297
Stevens.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
4 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 63%
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · Kentucky Supreme Court (2)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lead Opinion

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[*298] 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,

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).