THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1992-1993
MARTIN
v.
D. C. COURT OF APPEALS
506 U.S. 1
1993
* * *
PER CURIAM:
We have entered orders similar to the present one on two previous occasions to prevent pro se petitioners from filing repetitious and frivolous requests for extraordinary relief. See In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (per curiam); In re McDonald, supra. Although this case does not involve abuse of an extraordinary writ, but rather the writ of certiorari, Martin's pattern of abuse has had a similarly deleterious effect on this Court's "fair allocation of judicial resources." See In re Sindram, supra, at 180. As a result, the same concerns which led us to enter the orders barring prospective filings in Sindram and McDonald require such action here.
We regret the necessity of taking this step, but Martin's refusal to heed our earlier warning leaves us no choice. His abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will therefore not prevent Martin from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. But it will free this Court's limited resources to consider the claims of those petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.
It is so ordered.
[1] Martin v. Smith, 506 U.S. ___ (1992); Martin v. Delaware, 506 U.S. ___ (1992); Martin v. Sparks, 506 U.S. ___ (1992); Martin v. Delaware, 505 U.S. ___ (1991).
[2] Martin v. Delaware Law School of Widener University, 506 U.S. ___ (1992); Martin v. Delaware, 506 U.S. ___ (1992); Martin v. Knox, 502 U.S. ___ (1991); Martin v. Knox, 502 U.S. ___ (1991); Martin v. Medical Center of Delaware, 502 U.S. ___ (1991).
DISSENTING OPINION:
TOC: Per Curiam > >
|