Summary
denying a pro se litigant IFP status and banning her from making future filings without paying the fee when she had filed 26 frivolous claims over 6.5 years regarding the actions of various government entities and actors
Summary of this case from Grant v. Cent. Intelligence AgencyOpinion
No. 96-8796.
Decided June 9, 1997
Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proseed in forma pauperis so that she may file a petition for certiorari from a Third Circuit decision dismissing her appeal as frivolous. In the past 6 1/2 years, she has filed 26 submissions in this Court, all of which have been denied; and eight weeks ago, the Clerk of the Court was instructed not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from her absent the required fees, see In re Vey, ante, p. 303.
Held: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. For the reasons stated in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (per curiam), she is barred from filing any further certiorari petitions in noncriminal matters unless she first complies with this Court's Rules.
Motion denied.
Pro se petitioner Eileen Vey seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that she may file a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Third Circuit dismissing her appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (1994 ed., Supp. II). Her underlying claims below, various alleged civil rights and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations by the President of the United States, the First Lady, and numerous Senators, judges (including THE CHIEF JUSTICE), foreign officials, and private citizens, are patently frivolous. In the past 6 1/2 years, she has filed 26 submissions in this Court, all of which have been denied. Just eight weeks ago, we went even further, instructing the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from her unless she first paid the required fees. See In re Vey, ante, p. 303 ( per curiam). Since that order has proved insufficient to deter petitioner's abusive conduct, we again deny her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and now instruct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from petitioner in noncriminal matters unless she first complies with this Court's Rules. Petitioner is allowed until June 30, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
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.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of this case.
For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 4 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.