68 A.3d 543
R.I.2013Background
- Plaintiff Norman Laurence, an ACI inmate serving life without parole, has repeatedly litigated claims in state and federal courts alleging prison officials surveilled, harassed, assaulted, and defamed him (including use of a hidden camera in his cell).
- Laurence filed a new civil complaint (PC 11-4971) naming DOC employees and asserting First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, plus state torts; he moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The State opposed IFP and asked the court to curb Laurence’s repeated filings as an abuse of judicial resources; defendants sought dismissal or fee payment from Laurence’s prison funds.
- On August 30, 2011 the Superior Court: (1) denied Laurence’s IFP motion for the new case (PC 11-4971) because the complaint failed Rule 8 notice-pleading requirements; and (2) entered an administrative order barring the clerk from accepting any pro se filings from Laurence in Superior Court unless signed by a licensed Rhode Island attorney (with a narrow exception).
- Laurence appealed both orders to the Rhode Island Supreme Court; he later waived the IFP issue on appeal by agreeing to pay filing fees. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the broad pro se filing restriction was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying IFP for PC 11-4971 | Laurence sought IFP; contested indigence | State argued Laurence files numerous meritless suits and should not get IFP | Waived on appeal by Laurence’s concession to pay fees; Court declined to decide further |
| Whether court may bar plaintiff from filing pro se civil actions broadly | Laurence argued right of access and need to preserve ability to bring future claims | State urged restriction to protect court resources from repetitive, meritless filings | Trial court’s blanket administrative ban vacated: overly broad, lacked specific findings, and denied procedural protections |
| Whether a filing restriction must be narrowly tailored and supported by record | Laurence contended no extreme abuse requiring broad restriction | State relied on precedents allowing limits for abuse of process | Court held such restrictions must be narrow, based on record showing widespread abuse, and preceded by notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Whether order’s scope violated access to courts for criminal or defendant matters | Laurence emphasized prohibition extended even to matters where he might be defendant or criminal cases | State did not limit its requested restriction similarly | Court noted order improperly failed to exclude criminal cases or defendant appearances and therefore impermissibly infringed access rights |
Key Cases Cited
- D'Amario v. State, 686 A.2d 82 (R.I. 1996) (burden to prove indigence for IFP applications)
- D'Amario, 725 A.2d 276 (R.I. 1999) (reasonable limits on filings that abuse courts may be justified)
- Cok v. Read, 770 A.2d 441 (R.I. 2001) (limits on pro se filings must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific findings)
- Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993) (broad filing restrictions implicate right of access and require caution)
- Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075 (1st Cir. 1980) (federal authority on restrictions for abusive litigants)
- Laurence v. Rhode Island Dep't of Corrections, 59 A.3d 1182 (R.I. 2013) (prior disposition of substantially similar claims by Laurence)