Summary

Zatko v. California — Opinion of the Court

Because in forma pauperis petitioners lack the financial disincentives-filing fees and attorney's fees-that help to deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, we felt such a rule change was necessary to provide us some control over the in forma pauperis docket. In ordering the amendment, we sought to discourage frivolous and malicious in forma pauperis filings, "particularly [from] those few persons whose filings are repetitive with the obvious effect of burdening the office of the Clerk and other members of the Court staff."
Source: Wikisource

Zatko v. California — Opinion of the Court

In the hope that our action will deter future similar frivolous practices, we deny Zatko and Martin leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases.
The dissent complains that, by invoking this rule against Zatko and Martin, we appear to ignore our duty to provide equal access to justice for both the rich and the poor.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature