Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process.[1] Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid.[2] The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.[3]
| Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided November 2, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals |
| Docket no. | 92-5584 |
| Citations | 506 U.S. 1 (more) 113 S. Ct. 397; 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 |
| Holding | |
| Petitioner is not entitled to file non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions for writ of certiorari, and must file all such petitions in compliance with Court rules and pay for them. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Blackmun |
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1992) (per curiam).
- Martin, 506 U.S. at 3 (per curiam).
- Martin, 506 U.S. at 4 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
External links
- Text of Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.