Supreme Court of the United States, 1993

In re Sassower

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 12, 1993 · Thomas, Ginsburg

510 U.S. 4; 114 S. Ct. 2; 126 L. Ed. 2d 6; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 6309 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

55 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Smith v. United States Congress (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2019)
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Poullard (La. Ct. App. 2003)
Fields v. Gilmore (District Court, C.D. Illinois 2001)
Sensor Sytems v FAA (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2012)
In re Telfair (District Court, D. New Jersey 2010)
Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v. Carvel (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
Dallas v. Gamble (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 2006)
Sassower v. Starr (In re Sassower) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2006)
T-Peg v. Vermont Timber (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2005)
Bucurescu v. 190A Realty Corp. (2d Cir. 2004)
Nowaczyk v. NHSP (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2003)
Ibrahim v. District of Columbia (D.C. 2000)
Bader v. Warden, NHSP (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2003)
Whitaker v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty. (Supreme Court of the United States 1995)
Support Systems International, Inc. v. Richard Mack (7th Cir. 1995)
Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States (3d Cir. 1995)
United States of America, Ex Rel. Todd Verdone, Pro Per v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, in the Matter of Todd Verdone (7th Cir. 1995)
Martin v. Marko (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Lowery v. Kaplan (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Attwood v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Deutsch v. United States (3d Cir. 1995)
Martin v. Garrison (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
In re George Sassower (2d Cir. 1994)
In the Matter of United Markets International, Inc., Debtor. W. Steve Smith, Trustee v. R. David Legg (5th Cir. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner George Sassower requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Sassower is allowed until November 2,1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraor *5 dinary writs from Sassower in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Prior to this Term, Sassower had filed 11 petitions in this Court over the last three years. Although Sassower was granted in forma pauperis status to file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent. * During the last four months, Sassower has suddenly increased his filings. He currently has 10 petitions pending before this Court — all of them patently frivolous.

Although we have not previously denied Sassower in forma pauperis status pursuant to Rule 39.8, we think it appropriate to enter an order pursuant to Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992). In both In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam), and In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), we entered orders similar to this one without having previously denied petitioners’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39.8. For the important reasons discussed in Martin, Sindram, and McDonald, we feel compelled to enter the order today barring prospective filings from Sassower.

Sassower’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Sassower from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order, how *6 ever, 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 Thomas and Justice Ginsburg took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion in No. 93-5252.

See Sassower v. New York, 499 U. S. 966 (1991) (certiorari); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); Sassower v. Mahoney, 498 U. S. 1108 (1991); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 904 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 498 U. S. 1081 (1991) (habeas corpus); In re Sassower, 498 U. S. 1081 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); Sassower v. United States Court of Appeals for D. C. Cir., 498 U. S. 1094 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Brieant, 498 U. S. 1094 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Thornburgh, 498 U. S. 1036 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Dillon, 493 U. S. 979 (1989) (certiorari).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.