|
|
In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991)
In re Sindram No. 90-6051 Decided Jan. 7, 1991 498 U.S. 177
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Sindram sought an extraordinary writ and permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. In the past three, years, he has filed 43 petitions and motions with the Court. The legal bases offered in support of his request for extraordinary relief are identical to those presented in many of his prior petitions for certiorari or rehearing.
Held: Sindram is denied in forma pauperis status in this and all future petitions for extraordinary relief, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions from him for such relief unless he pays the docketing fee required by this Court’s Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. On its face, his petition does not even remotely satisfy the requirements for issuance of an extraordinary writ. Forcing the Court to devote its limited resources to processing frivolous and abusive petitions such as Sindram’s compromises the goal of fairly dispensing justice. Pro se petitioners, who are not subject to the financial considerations that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184. The risk of abuse is particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, which are not subject to any time limitations. Sindram remains free to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary wit if he qualifies under Rule 39 and does not similarly abuse that privilege.
Motion denied.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) in 498 U.S. 177 Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5ZAGSI8HFX88GB3.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991), in 498 U.S. 177, Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5ZAGSI8HFX88GB3.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991). cited in 1991, 498 U.S. 177. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5ZAGSI8HFX88GB3.
|