BRENNAN, J., dissenting 464 U. S. This practice simply postpones the determination of the merits of the questions presented until after deficiencies in the in forma pauperis motion are corrected or the filing fee is paid. That approach multiplies our work to no purpose. I cannot concur in this treatment. Not only does the Court fail to provide the parties with any guidance as to how their affidavits may be considered in the future, it also prescribes no standards by which litigants and those screening the motions may determine when an individual is sufficiently poor to warrant a grant of in forma pauperis status. The only statement the Court has ever made on this subject is that an affiant must show he is unable to "pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide' himself and dependents 'with the necessities of life."" Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U. S. 331, 339 (1948). This is hardly a meaningful standard; it indeed suggests that a wide array of factors must be considered before ruling on a motion.* But, even with an articulated set of standards against which to make decisions, under today's procedure we lose, not gain. Certainly that should be clear to those of us who perceive that we engage in a never-ending struggle to find time needed for important work. The likely result of disposing of cases as the Court does today will be to encourage parties bringing these motions to resubmit their petitions or appeals with a new affidavit they hope will strike a more sympathetic chord-thus increasing the time we must spend to dispose of frivolous cases. Where it is clear that the merits involved are almost certainly insufficient to demand full review (as has been our experience in all but a handful of in forma pauperis cases each year) no purpose is served by indulging in that waste. It is important that we try to avoid the waste of the parties' time, but perhaps even more important that this Court's 'I note in passing that Form 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure does not even call for a description of the debts of the affiant; nor does it call for the affiant's age; nor does it call for an indication of the cost of living in the affiant's place of residence. Hence, I doubt that the Court could successfully develop standards based on the information currently available. Furthermore, it is no answer that there is a wide range of motions, such as motions for extensions of time, that the Court decides without the aid of explicit standards. Motions to proceed in forma pauperis are a special case since they will determine whether an individual gains access to this Court. 928 STEVENS, J., dissenting time not be used in this unnecessary exercise. AS JUSTICE STEVENS has stated in a similar context, "given the volume of frivolous, illegible, and sometimes unintelligible petitions that are filed in this Court, our work is facilitated by the practice of simply denying certiorari once a determination is made that there is no merit to the petitioner's claim." Davis v. Jacobs, 454 U. S. 911, 914 (1981) (opinion respecting denial of certiorari). What possible justification can support the scrutiny of 1,000 affidavits in support of in forma pauperis motions each year? Except, perhaps, in cases of extreme abuse," where a petition or appeal wholly lacks merit, we surely benefit all concerned by relying on that reason for disposing finally of the case. Our time certainly can be spent in more productive effort than the determination of whether a petitioner or appellant is able to pay $200 plus the cost of printing and still provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life. JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. Although I agree with JUSTICE BRENNAN that we should simply deny unmeritorious certiorari petitions without scrutinizing the petitioner's right to proceed in forma pauperis, I would not grant any such petition without making sure that the petitioner is unable to pay the required costs. If such examination disclosed the kind of disrespect for our rules that has motivated the Court's unusual action in these cases, I would deny the petition even if it would otherwise have merited review. That would remove any incentive a petitioner might otherwise have to seek in forma pauperis status although ineligible for such status, without requiring the Court to assume the burden of examining every motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In borderline cases the petitioner should, of course, be given an opportunity to pay the required costs before final action is taken on his application. I see no purpose, however, in insisting that these petitioners-none of whom is represented by counsel who could advise them that their petitions stand no chance of being granted-pay a fee for the privilege of having their petitions denied. "See, e. g., Unterthiner v. Desert Hospital District Of Palm Springs, No. 82-6765 (approximately $1,000,000 net assets, $2,500 salary per month, and four dependents), ante, p. 928. October 31, 1983 464 U. S. Probable Jurisdiction Noted No. 83-141. ET AL.; HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL. v. MIDKIFF No. 83-236. PORTLOCK COMMUNITY ASSN. (MAUNALUA BEACH) ET AL. v. MIDKIFF ET AL.; and No. 83-283. KAHALA COMMUNITY ASSN., INC., ET AL. v. MIDKIFF ET AL. Appeals from C. A. 9th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. Reported below: 702 F. 2d 788. Certiorari Granted No. 82-2120. SMITH ET AL. v. ROBINSON, RHODE ISLAND ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ET AL. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 703 F. 2d 4. No. 83-173. WASMAN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 700 F. 2d 663. No. 83-371. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. v. ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 226 U. S. App. D. C. 67, 699 F. 2d 1219. No. 83-185. COOPER ET AL. v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Reported below: 698 F. 2d 633. Certiorari Denied. (See also Nos. 83-518, 83-5322, 83-5375, and 83-5431, supra.) No. 82-1414. PRATT-FARNSWORTH, INC., ET AL. v. CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1846 OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 690 F. 2d 489. No. 82-1704. BENNETT ET AL. v. WILLIAMS. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 689 F. 2d 1370. No. 82-1839. MANN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MANN v. GOLD ET AL.; and MANN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MANN v. CANTER ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 698 F. 2d 1231. No. 82-1882. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF PORTLAND ET AL. v. RUDIE ET AL. Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 59 Ore. App. 409, 650 P. 2d 191. No. 82-1997. ROLLINS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 699 F. 2d 530. No. 82-2003. LICENSED BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS ASSN. v. UNITED STATES; and No. 82-2013. TEXAS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 695 F. 2d 136. No. 82-2007. ANDREW v. UNITED STATES. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 468. C. A. 9th Cir. No. 82-2088. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES v. BURNS ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 696 F. 2d 21. PETTI ET AL. v. UNITED STATES; and No. 82-2092. No. 83-252. BARTOLATTA v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 707 F. 2d 520. No. 82-2095. GARDNER ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. below: 700 F. 2d 695. No. 82-2139. Reported ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 696 F. 2d 1237. No. 82-2163. GARBIN v. Ff11lorida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 429 So. 2d 15. No. 82-6204. TOLBERT v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 692 F. 2d 1041. No. 82-6746. Certiorari denied. No. 82-6794. Certiorari denied. No. 82-6808. PRISON. C. A. 703 F.2d 403. No. 82-6862. REED v. OKLAHOMA. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. LOCKS v. SUMNER, WARDEN OF SAN QUENTIN 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: ALLARD v. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 123 N. H. 209, 459 A. 2d 259. No. 82-6878. IVY v. TEXAS. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied. Reported below: Sup. Ct. App. No. 82-6889. AUDIA v. WEST VIRGINIA. W. Va. Certiorari denied. 301 S. E. 2d 199. No. 82-6890. DYSART v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 1247. No. 82-6902. HALL v. IOWA ET AL. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 283. No. 82-6910. FRAZIER ET AL. v. MANSON, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. ported below: 703 F. 2d 30. Certiorari denied. Re No. 82-6912. GUKEISEN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 702 F. 2d 704. No. 82-6939. UNGER v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 700 F. 2d 445. No. 82-6942. ROBERSON v. ESTELLE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 699 F. 2d 1161. No. 82-6978. NEWSOME v. ILLINOIS. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. N. E. 2d 634. Reported below: 110 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 443 No. 82-7002. WALLACE v. LOCKHART, DIRECTOR OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. C. A. 8th Cir. denied. Reported below: 701 F. 2d 719. Certiorari No. 82-7004. ADAMS v. DAYAN. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 704 F. 2d 1252. No. 82-7005. BOWRING v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECSup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied. TIONAL CENTER. No. 82-7006. Certiorari denied. CRAIG v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 11th Cir. BANKS ET AL. v. BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRI- No. 82-7015. CULTURE, ET AL. below: 700 F. 2d 292. No. 82-7029. Certiorari denied. HOWARD v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. |