Judd v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.
- (HC) Harris v. Lackner (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
- Judd v. United States District Court (Fed. Cir. 2006)
- Judd v. Furgeson (District Court, D. New Jersey 2002)
- Hyland v. Stevens (6th Cir. 2002)
- Lucas v. County of Kern (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
- Fahy v. NH DOS Commissioner, et al. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2006)
- Keith Judd v. The University of New Mexico Donald Grady, II Albuquerque Police Department U.S. Secret Service (10th Cir. 2000)
- Vincent Pastore-v-County of Santa Cruz (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2024)
- Connor Burns v. Mammoth Media, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2021)
- Chudley v. USA (TV2) (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 2021)
- People v. Valenzuela CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
- Forsyth v. HP Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2020)
- People v. Mendez CA2/6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
- Keith Russell Judd v. Karen Y. Corey-Steele (Tex. App. 2015)
- Judd v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2015)
- Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 2014)
- Freedom From Religion v. Hanover, et (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2009)
- Pan American v. Pease, et al. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2003)
- Baldi v. Bourn (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2002)
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 of the Court
Pro se petitioner Judd seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Judd is allowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Judd in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Judd has abused this Court’s certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. On May 30, 1995, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Judd informa pauperis status with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ. See In re Judd, 515 U. S. 1101. Prior to this Rule 39.8 denial, Judd had filed six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. Since the Rule 39.8 denial, Judd has filed four petitions for certiorari, all of which were also frivolous and denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Judd’s total number of frivolous filings to 12.
It is so ordered.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting), and eases cited, I respectfully dissent.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.