Citation Nation

[oscar]

I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).

The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.

[Scott5114]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

I thought it was going to criticize people's desire for high-quality articles to back up facts in light of recent political events.

[1995hoo]

I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).

The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.

The federal district and appellate courts all have provisions for proceeding "in forma pauperis." In addition to waiving fees, they allow IFP parties to file fewer copies of documents, among other things. (Even in this era of electronic filing, you still have to file multiple paper copies of your brief.)

IFP applications are reviewed pretty strictly in part because historically the status has been abused by prisoners filing "recreational litigation" just to cause trouble. A classic example of this sort of thing brought by a prisoner who paid his filing fees, and thus initially avoided the frivolity review associated with an IFP application, is discussed in Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996). The opinion's memorable first paragraph reads as follows (alterations in original). The judge goes on to discuss the many other bizarre motions this prisoner filed:

On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the April 5 Order was not a final order, Plaintiff's appeal is an interlocutory appeal and, as such, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and matters in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As of the date indicated below, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above-captioned case for Plaintiff's complete disregard of and noncompliance with an explicit court order. FED.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LOCAL RULE 41.1(b); see Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that district court's power to dismiss action under Rule 41(b) for failure to obey court order is inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders). All outstanding motions are hereby rendered MOOT.

Later, regarding IFP status, the court noted:

Since his commitment to the state prison system, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant within the federal courts seeking relief through the auspices of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Chatham County has also informed this Court that Plaintiff is frequently suing for various forms of relief through the state court system as well. What distinguishes Plaintiff from most prisoner litigants in federal courts is that he pays his filing fee rather than submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It has come to the attention of this Court that Plaintiff's litigation practice is largely, if not entirely, underwritten by the Federal Treasury as he periodically receives a substantial check for veterans' disability benefits. By paying his filing fee, Plaintiff has thus far avoided the filter of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) frivolity review. As a result, patently frivolous lawsuits have languished in this district longer than would otherwise be warranted with other prisoner litigants.

[hm insulators]

More breaking news: sky is blue!!! and milk is white!!!!
Stay tuned for more updates.

Water is wet! The Pope is Catholic!

[hm insulators]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

It got pulled over and cited.

For falsely calling itself a "car."

[cpzilliacus]

I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).

The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.

Actually, getting the Supremes to review a matter that is within their discretion to reject is impressive on its own, and the fee of a few hundred dollars (at least that's what it was years ago) is remarkably cheap.

[cpzilliacus]

I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).

The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.

The federal district and appellate courts all have provisions for proceeding "in forma pauperis." In addition to waiving fees, they allow IFP parties to file fewer copies of documents, among other things. (Even in this era of electronic filing, you still have to file multiple paper copies of your brief.)

IFP applications are reviewed pretty strictly in part because historically the status has been abused by prisoners filing "recreational litigation" just to cause trouble. A classic example of this sort of thing brought by a prisoner who paid his filing fees, and thus initially avoided the frivolity review associated with an IFP application, is discussed in Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996). The opinion's memorable first paragraph reads as follows (alterations in original). The judge goes on to discuss the many other bizarre motions this prisoner filed:

On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the April 5 Order was not a final order, Plaintiff's appeal is an interlocutory appeal and, as such, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and matters in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As of the date indicated below, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above-captioned case for Plaintiff's complete disregard of and noncompliance with an explicit court order. FED.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LOCAL RULE 41.1(b); see Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that district court's power to dismiss action under Rule 41(b) for failure to obey court order is inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders). All outstanding motions are hereby rendered MOOT.

Later, regarding IFP status, the court noted:

Since his commitment to the state prison system, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant within the federal courts seeking relief through the auspices of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Chatham County has also informed this Court that Plaintiff is frequently suing for various forms of relief through the state court system as well. What distinguishes Plaintiff from most prisoner litigants in federal courts is that he pays his filing fee rather than submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It has come to the attention of this Court that Plaintiff's litigation practice is largely, if not entirely, underwritten by the Federal Treasury as he periodically receives a substantial check for veterans' disability benefits. By paying his filing fee, Plaintiff has thus far avoided the filter of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) frivolity review. As a result, patently frivolous lawsuits have languished in this district longer than would otherwise be warranted with other prisoner litigants.

Sounds like the judges involved in this got it right. 

I suppose that someone in prison does not give up his or her disability payment if the crime for which they were imprisoned is not about those payments. 

[cpzilliacus]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

It got pulled over and cited.

For falsely calling itself a "car."

The Cadillac Cimarron, which IIRC was just a fancied-up Chevy Cavalier but looked a lot like the Citation was even worse (but another example of how screwed-up GM was in the 1980's).

The early  1980's Chevy Cavalier, for what it was, was not great but not terrible either - as long as it was not crashed.

[paulthemapguy]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

And I expected it to be about Wikipedia.

that's amazing

Burn in hell, MLA style guides!

Anyways yeah, the government's extortion of its own people is unfortunate and shameful.  Though I find it's exacerbated in states that don't have adequate taxation.  Looking at you, Indiana...Curse you for that speeding ticket in September 2015

[cjk374]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

It got pulled over and cited.

For falsely calling itself a "car."

My first car was a 1981 Citation. I liked the car. I paid $400 for it at a church yard sale (it had 57K original miles). I got 2 years & almost 70K miles out of it before I was rear ended by a high school kid driving a 1980 Volvo. The insurance company paid me $950 for it when they totalled it.

[SP Cook]

The Cadillac Cimarron, which IIRC was just a fancied-up Chevy Cavalier but looked a lot like the Citation was even worse (but another example of how screwed-up GM was in the 1980's).

You say that like the screwed-up period in GM history has a time limit.  GM is, was, and always will be screwed-up.

The 82 Cimarron was among the most arrogant and customer disregarding of GM's legion of such cars.  It was a "J body" one size below the "X body" such as the Citation.   The previous "X body", which was a Chevy Nova, had been tricked out into the original Seville.  Caddy passed on making a Caddy version of the next "X body" (the Citation) and went with a four door varriant of the huge Eldorado as the second generation Seville.  This left Caddy with nothing to offer against their well-made competitors when gas prices shot up.

GM's answer was to take a Chevy Cavalier, check all the option boxes, toss on some faux wire rims and leather seats, and a Caddy grille and call it a "Cimarron".  It was so bad that even GM would not admit it was really a Cadillac, prefering to call it "Cimarron by Cadillac", which made that year's ad slogan (Best of all, it's a Cadillac) have to be modified to "Best of all, it is made by Cadillac" 

GM used the time (and used the people that fell for this charade) to develop the not as bad third generation Seville, which came out for 86 and the Cimarron quietly died after 88.

[nexus73]

Now imagine if Cadillac's performance image from the 00's had been present when the Cimarron was being manufactured.  V-6 turbo, AWD, handling package...it would have been just the ticket to go against the BMW 320i and Audi Quattro.

GM failed to be "all in" with the Fiero.  Then along came Mazda with their Miata to show how it was supposed to be done. 

Today any of the Big Three could be bought with the pocket change of a Silicon Valley giant.  The times they are a'changin...LOL!

Rick

[Roadrunner75]

I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.

It got pulled over and cited.

For falsely calling itself a "car."

My first car was a 1981 Citation. I liked the car. I paid $400 for it at a church yard sale (it had 57K original miles). I got 2 years & almost 70K miles out of it before I was rear ended by a high school kid driving a 1980 Volvo. The insurance company paid me $950 for it when they totalled it.

Wow....same exact car, model year and price I paid for my first car too.  Except my Citation had I think somewhere around 120K on it when I got it in '92, and those miles weren't kind to it.  I had it in high school and the first 2 years of college before it was junk yard time.  My friends and I had a great time with it though and we put a lot of miles on it in a short time.  My favorite part was the rack and pinion locking up the wheel on me during turns every once in a while....good times.  After that, I stepped up my game with a brown '79 Pinto wagon.