In re Ciotta
In brief
The Supreme Court denied Ciotta’s fee-waiver request and threw out his petition after citing repeated abuse of the Court’s process, but it did not decide whether his custody, conviction, or sentence was lawful.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court denied Ciotta’s request for relief, leaving his conviction and sentence in place. The case concerned his claim that a remand or recall of the appellate mandate was necessary because his custody and conviction were allegedly unlawful.
- Who it affects
- Ciotta received no relief from this petition, and the Court did not decide whether his custody, conviction, or sentence was lawful.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The filing combined a challenge to custody with a request for an appellate mandate to be sent back or recalled.
Question presented
1. Whether the Petitioner is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus? 3. Whether the Petitioner's conviction and sentence are void for lack of jurisdiction?
What the Court decided
Holding
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
- Result
- Dismissed
The Court's reasoning
The order cited Rule 39.8 and said Ciotta had repeatedly abused the Court’s process. It denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and threw out the petition without deciding whether his custody, conviction, or sentence was lawful.
What's next
The Court has finished this docket action. The Clerk must not accept a future noncriminal petition from Ciotta unless he pays the Rule 38(a) docketing fee and submits it in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.