502us1$$3Z 08-21-96 15:21:59 PAGES OPINPGT
20
ZATKO v. CALIFORNIA Stevens, J., dissenting
need for the orderly administration of justice and respect for the judicial process, the message that it actually conveys is that the Court does not have an overriding concern about equal access to justice for both the rich and the poor.3 By its action today, the Court places yet another barrier in the way of indigent petitioners.4 By branding these petitioners under Rule 39.8, the Court increases the chances that their future petitions, which may very well contain a colorable claim, will not be evaluated with the attention they deserve. Because I believe the Court has little to gain and much to lose by applying Rule 39.8 as it does today, I would deny certiorari in these cases, and will so vote in similar cases in the future.
3
“Our longstanding tradition of leaving our door open to all classes of litigants is a proud and decent one worth maintaining. See Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U. S. 1067, 1070 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring).” In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177, 182 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by Blackmun and Stevens, JJ.). 4 “And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here.” In re Demos, 500 U. S. 16, 19 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by Blackmun and Stevens, JJ.).
