Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

James Martin was a serial abuser of the court’s certiorari process; in the past decade following the court’s per curium opinion, Martin filed 45 petitions relating to being incarcerated for an unrelated offense, and the last 15 petitions for the prior two years were dismissed under the court’s rule 39.8. Although the case theoretically applies to only the Supreme Court itself, it has become a common procedural tool against certain abusive petitioners on the in forma pauperis docket, particularly those who repeatedly petition similar frivolous arguments within several years, averaging around 2-3 petitioners per order list.