Summary

In Re Michael Sindram — Opinion of the Court

The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system.
Source: Wikisource

In Re Michael Sindram — Opinion of the Court

As we explained, the Court waives filing fees and costs for indigent individuals in order to promote the interests of justice. The goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations filing fees and attorney's fees-that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions.
Source: Wikisource

In Re Michael Sindram — Opinion of the Court

The mandamus petition alleges only that petitioner's "appeal in the lower court remains pending and unacted upon," and that " [a] s a direct and proximate cause of this dilatory action, Petitioner is unable to have his driving record expunged." Pet. for Mandamus 2. The legal bases offered by petitioner for relief were presented in eight prior certiorari petitions and are identical to the claims unsuccessfully presented in at least 13 of petitioner's rehearing petitions.
As we made clear in McDonald, the granting of an extraordinary writ is, in itself, extraordinary.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature