Forma Pauperis: Fill & Download for Free

You can’t. Following up on Mr. Cozmo’s excellent idea of checking the Supreme Court’s orders list, I see that the Court has already dismissed your petition. Furthermore, they have declared you to be a vexatious litigant.The full text of the Court’s order reads:“The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. 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.”What this order means is:The Supreme Court has already dismissed your case. It’s over.You have a bad track record of filing frivolous petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court does not use the phrase “repeatedly abused this Court’s process” lightly.According to the docket I found on Justia, you have filed dozens and dozens of frivolous lawsuits in federal court over the past several years. You have even been incarcerated for violating court orders that prohibit you from filing vexatious lawsuits against your neighbors.There is no way on this planet that any respectable attorney is going to agree to represent a person with your track record. Not pro bono. Not for money. Not at all. You dug your own grave years ago.You’re like the boy who cried “Wolf.” Even if you had a meritorious claim — which you don’t — you have filed so many frivolous lawsuits that nobody is going to listen to you.

[Edited: Sorry, Mr. Peck. For some reason your response from last year (!) did not come up in my feed.]United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971)Plaintiff attempted to proceed in forma pauperis (too poor to pay court fees) in his lawsuit against Satan. From the ruling: “He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.”Petition to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Not because Plaintiff failed to make the showing that he was impoverished, but because the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant (plaintiff could not effect service of process). This essentially mooted the in forma pauperis application.Honorable mention: not bizarre, per se, but this went viral a few years ago:Kissel v. Schwartz & Maines & Ruby Co., Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kenton Circuit Court, First Division, Case No. 09-CI-00165 (Jul. 19, 2011)The herein matter having been scheduled for a trial by jury commencing July 13, 2011, and numerous pre-trial motions having yet to be decided and remaining under submission;And the parties having informed the Court that the herein matter has been settled amicably (the Court uses the word amicably loosely) and that there is no need for a Court ruling on the remaining motions and also that there is no need for a trial;Such news of an amicable settlement having made this Court happier than a tick on a fat dog because it is otherwise busier than a one legged cat in a sand box and, quite frankly would have rather jumped naked off a twelve foot step ladder into a five gallon bucket of porcupines than have presided over a two week trial of the herein dispute, a trial which, no doubt would have made the jury more confused than a hungry baby in a topless bar and made the parties and their attorneys madder than mosquitoes in a mannequin factory;IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court as follows:1. The jury trial scheduled herein for July 13, 2011 is hereby CANCELLED.2. Any and all pending motions will remain under submission pending the filing of an Agreed Judgment, Agreed Entry of Dismissal, or other pleadings consistent with the parties' settlement.3. The copies of various correspondence submitted for in-camera review by the Defendant shall be sealed by the Clerk until further orders of the Court.4. The Clerk shall engage the services of a structural engineer to ascertain if the return of this file to the Clerk's office will exceed the maximum structural load of the floors of said office.Dated this 19 day of July, 2011.MARTIN J. SHEEHAN Kenton Circuit Judge

Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis sets the rules for appeals for those without money. Basically, if the Supreme Court accepts a case, it will not charge the usual fees and it will appoint an attorney if you do not have one appropriately qualified who is providing their work pro bono.