Brancato v. Gunn
| Brancato v. Gunn | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided October 12, 1999 | |
| Full case name | Brancato v. Gunn et al. |
| Docket no. | 98-9913 |
| Citations | 528 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Abusive filer of frivolous petitions is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39.8 and barred from filing further certiorari petitions in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Stevens |
Brancato v. Gunn is a United States Supreme Court case regarding frivolous court filings. In the case, the Court denied petitioner's ability to continue to submit such filings.[1]
Background[edit]
At the Supreme Court, indigent petitioners are able to proceed by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP. IFP petitions are governed by Supreme Court Rule 39, which states in relevant part:
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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Prior to this case, Brancato had filed seven petitions for certiorari in the Supreme Court, all of which were found to be frivolous and denied without dissent.[2]
Supreme Court[edit]
In a per curiam opinion, the Court denied Brancato's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It further directed the Clerk of the court not to accept further petitions from Brancato in noncriminal matters unless he paid the Court's docketing fee as required by Supreme Court Rule 38. Since Brancato's petitions were limited to the civil context, he would only be prohibited from filing additional petitions in this context. The Court based its decision in this case on its findings in a similar case, Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Justice Stevens dissented, citing the reasons he gave in his dissenting opinion in Martin.[2]