View source for Brancato v. Gunn

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Brancato v. Gunn
  |Litigants2=
  |Litigants3=
  |Litigants4=
  |Litigants5=
  |ArgueDate=
  |ArgueDateA=
  |ArgueDateB=
  |ArgueYear=
  |ReargueDate=
  |ReargueDate2=
  |ReargueDateA=
  |ReargueDateB=
  |ReargueDateA2=
  |ReargueDateB2=
  |ReargueYear=
  |ReargueYear2=
  |SubmitDate=
  |SubmitYear=
  |DecideDate=October 12
  |DecideYear=1999
  |FullName=Brancato v. Gunn et al.
  |Docket=98-9913
  |Docket2=
  |Docket3=
  |Docket4=
  |Docket5=
  |OralArgument=
  |ParallelCitations=
  |USVol=528
  |USPage=1
  |Claim=
  |Prior=
  |Procedural=
  |Subsequent=
  |QuestionsPresented=
  |Holding=Abusive filer of frivolous petitions is denied leave to proceed ''in forma pauperis'' under this Court’s Rule 39.8 and barred from filing further certiorari petitions in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1.
  |PerCuriam=yes
  |Majority=
  |JoinMajority=
  |Majority2=
  |JoinMajority2=
  |Majority3=
  |JoinMajority3=
  |Plurality=
  |JoinPlurality=
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence3=
  |JoinConcurrence3=
  |Concurrence4=
  |JoinConcurrence4=
  |Concurrence5=
  |JoinConcurrence5=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent3=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent3=
  |Concurrence/Dissent4=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent4=
  |Concurrence/Dissent5=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent5=
  |Dissent=Stevens
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |Dissent3=
  |JoinDissent3=
  |Dissent4=
  |JoinDissent4=
  |Statement=
  |Statement2=
  |NotParticipating=
  |Seriatim=
  |Seriatim2=
  |Seriatim3=
  |Seriatim4=
  |Seriatim5=
  |LawsApplied=
  |Superseded=
  |Overruled=
  |Overturned previous case=
}}
'''''Brancato v. Gunn''''' is a [[United States Supreme Court]] case regarding frivolous court filings. In the case, the Court denied petitioner's ability to continue to submit such filings.<ref name = opinion>{{cite court|litigants = Brancato v. Gunn|vol = 506|reporter = U.S.|opinion = 1|year = 1999|postscript =none}} (''per curiam'')</ref>
==Background==
At the Supreme Court, indigent petitioners are able to proceed by filing a motion for leave to proceed ''[[in forma pauperis]]'', or IFP. IFP petitions are governed by Supreme Court Rule 39, which states in relevant part:

{{blockquote|
If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed ''in forma pauperis''.
}}

Prior to this case, Brancato had filed seven petitions for ''certiorari'' in the Supreme Court, all of which were found to be frivolous and denied without dissent.<ref name = opinion_2>''Brancato'', 506 U.S. at 2</ref>
== Supreme Court ==
In a ''per curiam'' opinion, the Court denied Brancato's motion for leave to proceed ''in forma pauperis''. It further directed the Clerk of the court not to accept further petitions from Brancato in noncriminal matters unless he paid the Court's docketing fee as required by Supreme Court Rule 38. Since Brancato's petitions were limited to the civil context, he would only be prohibited from filing additional petitions in this context. The Court based its decision in this case on its findings in a similar case, ''[[Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals]]''.

[[John Paul Stevens|Justice Stevens]] dissented, citing the reasons he gave in his dissenting opinion in ''Martin''.<ref name = opinion_2></ref>

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:1999 in United States case law]]