Shieh v. Kakita, 517 U.S. 343 (1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Shieh v. Kakita, 517 U.S. 343 (1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: SMITH v. HARRISON (paed, 2022-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SMITH v. HARRISON
E.D. Pa. · 2022 · confidence medium
Mo. 1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1993)). 111 Id.; Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating claim for denial of court access requires plaintiff “show . . . her exercise of the right at issue, the right of accessing the courts to secure judicial relief, has been infringed in some consequential way”), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1286 (2007)); Adegbuji v. Middlesex Cnty., 169 F. App’x 677 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of access to courts claims for failing to allege actual injury); Lewis v. Casey, 517 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (holding claimant seeking damages for deni…
examined Cited "see" Jerardo Rodriguez v. David Cook, Director, Oregon State Penitentiary (3×)
9th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shieh v. Kakita, 517 U.S. 343, 343-344 , 116 S.Ct. 1311 , 134 L.Ed.2d 464 (1996); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 2 , 113 S.Ct. 397 , 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992); In re McDonald, 489 *1180 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993, 994 , 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lewis v. Sullivan (3×)
W.D. Wis. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Shieh v. Kakita, 517 U.S. 343, 343-44 , 116 S.Ct. 1311 , 134 L.Ed.2d 464 (1996); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 2 , 113 S.Ct. 397 , 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 993 , 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roller v. Gunn (2×)
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Shieh v. Kakita, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1311 , 134 L.Ed.2d 464 (1996) (prisoner prospectively barred from filing petitions for certiorari in forma pauperis after filing 10 frivolous petitions in less than three years); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 , 109 S.Ct. 993, 996 , 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989) (prisoner prospectively barred from using in forma pauperis procedures to file extraordinary writs after 73 frivolous filings between 1971 and 1989); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 781 (D.C.Cir.1981) (prisoner filed "between 600 and 700 complaints in the federal and state courts").
examined Cited "see, e.g." Roller v. Gunn (3×)
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Shieh v. Kakita, 116 S. Ct. 1311 (1996) (prisoner prospectively barred from filing petitions for certiorari in forma pauperis after filing 10 frivolous petitions in less than three years); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (pris- oner prospectively barred from using in forma pauperis procedures to 4 file extraordinary writs after 73 frivolous filings between 1971 and 1989); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 781 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SHIEH
v.
KAKITA Et Al.
95-7587.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 16, 1996.
517 U.S. 343
Stevens.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

In these three petitions for certiorari, pro se petitioner Liang-Houh Shieh requests leave to proceed in forma pau-peris under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny his requests pursuant to Rule 39.8. Shieh is allowed until April 22, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Shieh in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Shieh has abused this Court’s certiorari process. In March 1996, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Shieh in forma pauperis status. See Shieh v. State Bar of California, 516[*344] U. S. 1170. To date, Shieh has filed 10 petitions in this Court in less than three years. All have been both patently frivolous and 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). Shieh’s abuse of the writ of cer-tiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will not prevent Shieh 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.

For the reasons I have previously expressed, I respectfully dissent. 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) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Zatko v. California, 502 U. S. 16, 18 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).