SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1997
BROWN v. WILLIAMS ET AL.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. 97-5370. Decided October 20, 1997
Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that he may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit. Since 1994, when this Court invoked its Rule 39.8 to deny him in forma pauperis status, Brown v. Brown, 513 U. S. 1040, he has filed eight petitions, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent.
Held: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. For the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, he is also barred from filing any further certiorari petitions in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Pro se petitioner Carson Lynn Brown seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order that he may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to pay the required filing fee.
We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
He is allowed until November 10, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fee required by this Court's Rule 38(a) and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For thecralaw
reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Petitioner has a history of abusing this Court's certiorari process. In 1994, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner in forma pauperis status. Brown v. Brown, 513 U. S. 1040 (1994). Undeterred by this action, petitioner has continued filing frivolous petitions with this Court. To date, petitioner has filed eight petitions over the last eight years, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent. In the instant petition, Brown alleges that certain prison officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights by, inter alia, denying him access to the courts and sabotaging his laundry, and that the District Judge below was biased against him as an "African Jew." These claims are patently frivolous.
We enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Because petitioner has limited his abuse of the certiorari process to noncriminal cases, we limit our sanction accordingly.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.
Full Text of Opinion