2020-12-07 - Scott v. Moon Mk VI(?) -

AnOminous

there ain't no turning back
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
What about this case:
Fourth Circuit Appeal Court case In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992). I especially like this part ("this Court expressly upheld a pre-filing review system that denied in forma pauperis status to a frequent filer of frivolous complaints except upon good cause shown) which would seriously deter Mel.



Originally when posting that in Mel's thread I meant the published district court ruling (Draper v. Muy Pizza Se. LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00013 (W.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2018 ) ), which I then noted that it was affirmed by the appeals court even if the appeals court ruling was unpublished. Sorry about the mix up, I should have made it clearer.
Only an appeals court ruling would be binding on other courts. Another judge on the same court could rule differently. That's why I looked to the 4th Circuit to see if it had been upheld in a published decision. In any event, relief like this is generally discretionary.

This also isn't terribly useful, because the appellant in this case had missed the deadline for a direct appeal, so the court was only addressing whether the denial of a motion to modify the injunction was an abuse of discretion, and because of fairly arcane deadline rules, only as a motion under FRCP 60(b). In short, the court couldn't consider the merits of the underlying pre-filing review order.

The short answer is courts can indeed impose such review, especially on i.f.p. frequent filers. Actually doing so is fairly uncommon, however.
 
Top