Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 5/2/1994

In Re Anderson

Citations

  • 511 U.S. 364
  • 114 S. Ct. 1606
  • 128 L. Ed. 2d 332
  • 1994 U.S. LEXIS 3299

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that filing fees are “assessed for the privilege of initiating an appeal”
  • noting that “filing fees and attorney’s fees ... deter ... litigants from filing frivolous petitions”
  • denying petitioner IFP status whenever seeking an extraordinary writ because petitioner’s twenty-two petitions and motions over three years were an abuse of the privilege
  • instructing clerk not to accept Anderson’s petitions for extraordinary-writs unless he pays docketing fee
  • forbidding abusive pro se litigant from bringing further extraordinary writs without prepayment of fees, but allowing him to continue to file in forma pauperis for other forms of relief
  • denying the pro se petitioner’s request for leave to Plaintiff’s notes from the investigation before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1 at 10-16.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Blackmun

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.