Legal Opinion

Zatko v. California

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 4, 1991No. 91-5052PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Per curiam

Last Term, we amended Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to add the following:

“39.8. If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary-writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”

Because in forma pauperis petitioners lack the financial disincentives — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that help to *17deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, we felt such a Rule change was necessary to provide us some control over the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re SindramSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. In Re Amendment to Rule 39Supreme Court of the United States · 1991

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Martin v. District of Columbia Court of AppealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Melvin P. Deutsch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  3. Douris v. Middletown TownshipCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
  4. Selvy v. Department of Housing & Urban DevelopmentDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2005
  5. Aruanno v. DavisDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2016

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API