Judd v. United States Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Texas, 528 U.S. 5 (1999). · Go Syfert
Judd v. United States Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Texas, 528 U.S. 5 (1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re: Lisa M. Morton (meb, 2026-03-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re: Lisa M. Morton
Bankr. D. Me. · 2026 · confidence medium
Dist. of Texas, 528 U.S. 5, 5-6 (1999) (sanctioning a self-represented litigant for multiple frivolous filings).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vincent Pastore-v-County of Santa Cruz
N.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. 2 “When an equal protection claim is premised on unique treatment rather than on a 3 classification, the Supreme Court has described it as a ‘class of one’ claim.” N. Pacifica LLC v. 4 City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 5 562, 564 (2000)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Harris v. Lackner
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 5 259, 285 (2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucas v. County of Kern
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Engquist v. Oregon 4 Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 5 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. 6 Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478 , 486 7 (9th Cir. 2008), see also Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 8 2004); Sea River Mar.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Judd v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
Judd v. United States District Court. et al., 528 U.S. 5, 5 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Judd v. Furgeson (2×)
D.N.J. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Judd v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 528 U.S. 5 , 120 S.Ct. 1 , 145 L.Ed.2d 7 (1999) (barring prospective filing of pro se petitions for certiorari or extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters, based on prior frivolous filings); Judd v. University of New Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir.2000) (enjoining Judd from proceeding pro se in that court without prior permission, based on Judd’s lengthy and abusive filing histoiy); Judd v. U.S. District Court, C.A.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Judd v. United States District Court (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Judd v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 528 U.S. 5 , 120 S.Ct. 1 , 145 L.Ed.2d 7 (1999) (barring prospective filings in noncriminal cases); Judd v. University of New Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir.2000) (enjoining Judd from pro ceeding as an appellant, pro se, unless leave is requested and granted in a particular case); Judd v. Winn, 81 Fed.Appx. 479 (5th Cir.2003) (unpublished order dismissing appeal, due to failure to pay sanctions for previous cases, and imposing filing restrictions).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JUDD
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Stevens.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Judd seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Judd is allowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Judd in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Judd has abused this Court’s certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. On May 30, 1995, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Judd informa pauperis status with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ. See In re Judd, 515 U. S. 1101. Prior to this Rule 39.8 denial, Judd had filed six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. Since the Rule 39.8 denial, Judd has filed four petitions for certiorari, all of which were also frivolous and denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Judd’s total number of frivolous filings to 12.

[*6] 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) (per curiam). Judd’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noneriminal eases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Judd from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes.

It is so ordered.

Dissent

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting), and eases cited, I respectfully dissent.