Fertel-rust Vs. Milwaukee County Mental Health Center Et Al

Fertel-rust vs Milwaukee County Mental Health Center Et Al

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-21-1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/107910

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/107910
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jun-21-1999
Case Number: 527 U.S. 469
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fertel-rust

Respondent

Milwaukee County Mental Health Center Et Al

Excerpt

.....by rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with this court's rule 33.1. we also direct the clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from fertel-rust in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with rule 33.1. fertel- rust has abused this court's certiorari process. four times in the last five years, we invoked rule 39.8 to deny fertel-rust in forma pauperis status. see fertelrust v. dane county social servs., 513 u. s. 1145 (1995); fertel-rust v. ambassador hotel, 513 u. s. 1013 (1994); fertel-rust v. milwaukee police dept., 513 u. s. 1013 (1994); fertel-rust v. milwaukee police dept., 513 u. s. 945 (1994). before these four denials, fertel-rust had filed three petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent. the instant petition 470 stevens, j., dissenting for certiorari thus brings fertel-rust's total number of frivolous filings to eight. we enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in martin v. district of columbia court of appeals, 506 u. s. 1 (1992) (per curiam). fertel-rust's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. the order therefore will not prevent fertel-rust from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on her, nor will it prevent her from filing appropriate petitions for an extraordinary writ. the order, however, will allow this court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process. it is so ordered. justice stevens, dissenting. for reasons previously stated, see cross v. pelican bay state prison, 526 u. s. 811 , 812 (1999) (stevens, j., dissenting); martin v. district of columbia court of appeals, .....

Full Judgment

FERTEL-RUST v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ET AL - 527 U.S. 469 (1999)

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

Per Curiam

FERTEL-RUST v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ET AL.

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. 98-8952. Decided June 21, 1999

Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her certiorari petition. The instant petition brings her total number of frivolous filings to eight.

Held: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. She is barred from filing any further certiorari petitions in noncriminal cases unless she first pays the docketing fee and submits her petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 .

Motion denied.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Fertel-Rust seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Fertel-Rust is allowed until July 12, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Fertel-Rust in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Fertel- Rust has abused this Court's certiorari process.

Four times in the last five years, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Fertel-Rust in forma pauperis status. See FertelRust v. Dane County Social Servs., 513 U. S. 1145 (1995); Fertel-Rust v. Ambassador Hotel, 513 U. S. 1013 (1994); Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Dept., 513 U. S. 1013 (1994); Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Dept., 513 U. S. 945 (1994). Before these four denials, Fertel-Rust had filed three petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition

470

STEVENS, J., dissenting

for certiorari thus brings Fertel-Rust's total number of frivolous filings to eight.

We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Fertel-Rust's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Fertel-Rust from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on her, nor will it prevent her from filing appropriate petitions for an extraordinary writ. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

For reasons previously stated, see Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison, 526 U. S. 811 , 812 (1999) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 , 4 (1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1999 Same Parties Fertel-rust vs Milwaukee County Mental Health Center Et Al Same Subject Land Acquisition