Zatko v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
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
- In Re SindramSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re Amendment to Rule 39Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
3Cited by31 opinions
- Martin v. District of Columbia Court of AppealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Melvin P. Deutsch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Douris v. Middletown TownshipCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Selvy v. Department of Housing & Urban DevelopmentDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2005
- Aruanno v. DavisDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2016
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.