Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a US Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process.

[2] The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

[3] James Martin was a serial abuser of the court’s certiorari process; in the past decade following the court’s per curium opinion, Martin filed 45 petitions relating to being incarcerated for an unrelated offense, and the last 15 petitions for the prior two years were dismissed under the court’s rule 39.8.

[4] Although the case theoretically applies to only the Supreme Court itself, it has become a common procedural tool against certain abusive petitioners on the in forma pauperis docket, particularly those who repeatedly petition similar frivolous arguments within several years, averaging around 2-3 petitioners per order list.

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub.