Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/175

 502us1$$3Z 08-21-96 15:21:59 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 16 (1991)

17

Per Curiam

deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, we felt such a Rule change was necessary to provide us some control over the in forma pauperis docket. In ordering the amendment, we sought to discourage frivolous and malicious in forma pauperis filings, “particularly [from] those few persons whose filings are repetitive with the obvious effect of burdening the office of the Clerk and other members of the Court staff.” In re Amendment to Rule 39, 500 U. S. 13 (1991). Today, we invoke Rule 39.8 for the first time, and deny in forma pauperis status to petitioners Vladimir Zatko and James L. Martin. We do not do so casually, however. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis only with respect to two petitioners who have repeatedly abused the integrity of our process through frequent frivolous filings. Over the last 10 years, Zatko has filed 73 petitions in this Court; 34 of those filings have come within the last 2 years. Martin has been only slightly less prolific over the same 10-year period and has filed over 45 petitions, 15 of them within the last 2 years. In each of their filings up to this point, we have permitted Zatko and Martin to proceed in forma pauperis, and we have denied their petitions without recorded dissent. However, this Court’s goal of fairly dispensing justice “is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests” such as these. In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177, 179–180 (1991). We conclude that the pattern of repetitious filing on the part of Zatko and Martin has resulted in an extreme abuse of the system. In the hope that our action will deter future similar frivolous practices, we deny Zatko and Martin leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases. The dissent complains that, by invoking this Rule against Zatko and Martin, we appear to ignore our duty to provide equal access to justice for both the rich and the poor. The message we hope to send is quite the opposite, however. In order to advance the interests of justice, the Court’s general