From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Vey

U.S.
Apr 14, 1997
520 U.S. 303 (1997)

Summary

directing the clerk not to accept any further petitions from Vey because "of her history of frivolous, repetitive filings," unless she first submits the docketing fee

Summary of this case from Ajuluchuku v. Southern New England School of Law

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

No. 96-8005

Decided April 14, 1997


Pro se petitioner Eileen Vey seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and requests this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating her 13-year-old convictions.

This is not Vey's first filing in this Court. In the past 6 1/2 years, she has filed 11 petitions for certiorari, 12 petitions for extraordinary relief, and 2 applications for bail. All of these have been denied. For the first 14 of those submissions, we granted her motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Since then, we have five times denied her leave to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court's Rule 39.8.

Rule 39.8 provides: "If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis."

We again deny petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Her various allegations are supported by nothing other than her own conclusory statements that they are true. Petitioner is allowed until May 5, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. In light of her history of frivolous, repetitive filings, we direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from petitioner unless she first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.

We enter the order barring future in forma pauperis filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) per curiam.

It is so ordered.


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


Summaries of

In re Vey

U.S.
Apr 14, 1997
520 U.S. 303 (1997)

directing the clerk not to accept any further petitions from Vey because "of her history of frivolous, repetitive filings," unless she first submits the docketing fee

Summary of this case from Ajuluchuku v. Southern New England School of Law

precluding Supreme Court Clerk from accepting further in forma pauperis filings "[i]n light of [pro se petitioner's] history of frivolous, repetitive filings"

Summary of this case from Mark H. v. Delores M.
Case details for

In re Vey

Case Details

Full title:IN RE VEY

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 14, 1997

Citations

520 U.S. 303 (1997)

Citing Cases

White v. Lee

He provides no support for his assertion and thus his bare contention also must fail. See In re Vey, 520 U.S.…

S.U. v. C.J.

While this Court has not adopted a vexatious litigant rule, other courts routinely levy sanctions or fashion…