At page 343 “the clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from appellant in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by supreme court rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with supreme court rule 33.1”2 citing cases
- Russell Edward Peverell v. Karen Faye Conder Eskew, No. 0060014 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2002).unpublished
- Vestal v. Clinton, No. 96-6089 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 1997).published
At page 351 holding claimant seeking damages for denial of access to the courts must “demonstrate that the alleged” deprivation “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim1 citing case
- Smith v. Harrison, No. 2:21-cv-05120, 2022 WL 445757 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).(holding claimant seeking damages for denial of access to the courts must “demonstrate that the alleged” deprivation “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim)
Other citing cases
- Jerardo Rodriguez v. David Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999).published
- Lewis v. Sullivan, 135 F. Supp. 2d 954 (W.D. Wis. 2001).published
- Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 1997).published
v.
KAKITA Et Al.
Lead Opinion
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
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).