Limits on court filings
Rogers v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Keith Rogers asks the Supreme Court to review a D.C. appeals court order restricting his future filings (a pre-filing injunction), arguing that it was imposed without findings of abusive litigation or a chance to respond.
- Who it affects
- Rogers did not receive Supreme Court review, and the order did not decide whether the filing restriction was lawful.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He also asks whether self-represented people subject to filing limits retain a constitutional right of access to the courts.
The petition asks when courts may limit future filings and whether self-represented people have a constitutional right of access to D.C. courts.
Question presented
1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits an Appellate court from imposing a pre-filing injunction without specific Findings of abusive litigation and without notice or opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the constitutional right of access to the courts, as recognized in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), and Tennessee v. Lane, 514 U.S. 509 (2004), extends to pro se litigants subject to filing restrictions in the District of Columbia courts.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
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.