Court’s Authority to Impose Filing Restrictions on Abusive Pro Se Litigants

Introduction

In the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s order dated May 21, 2025, the Court dismissed an original action petition brought by Jamie J. Stickney and Tyler C. Frick and, for the first time in this procedural posture, formally imposed filing restrictions on pro se litigants who engage in repetitive and abusive filings. Petitioners had sought review of a circuit court’s denial of indigency fee waivers in Adams County Circuit Court Case No. 2025CV21. Over a period of six weeks, they initiated multiple original actions, supervisory writs, appeals, voluntary dismissals, motions to recast cases, and duplicative filings—totaling more than a hundred separate submissions. The Court’s order both cleansed the docket of the immediate matter and invoked its inherent authority to regulate access to its own processes, issuing detailed procedures that Stickney and Frick must follow if they wish to file in the future.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin entered two principal rulings. First, it dismissed the petition for leave to commence an original action under Wis. Stat. § 809.70 and denied all related requests for relief ex parte. Second, it imposed comprehensive filing restrictions on both Tyler C. Frick and Jamie J. Stickney, finding that their serial, duplicative filings constituted an abuse of process and threatened the efficient administration of justice.

Under the imposed restrictions, neither party may e-file documents in any civil matter related to specified underlying cases without either representation by a Wisconsin-licensed attorney or prior leave of the Court. Any pro se filing must be by traditional paper means and be accompanied by a copy of the order, the document sought to be filed, and a notarized affidavit demonstrating a non-frivolous, non-duplicative basis for relief. The Clerk’s Office will maintain separate “miscellaneous” files for each litigant and will return non-compliant submissions unfiled.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied primarily on its inherent authority to regulate its docket and curb abusive litigation practices. It cited Minniecheske v. Griesbach, 161 Wis. 2d 743, 748 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1991), which recognized that appellate courts may impose filing restrictions when litigants inundate the court with meritless or repetitive filings. The Court also referenced its own April 23, 2025 order in Nos. 2025AP557, AP756-W, AP757-W, AP764-W, and AP765-W, where it had warned Frick that continued serial filings would result in restrictions.

Additionally, the Court observed potential violations of Wis. Stat. § 757.30 and Supreme Court Rule (SCR) Chapter 23, which forbid the unauthorized practice of law. It noted that Frick’s repeated representation of Stickney—who was the real party in interest—while not licensed to practice, raised serious concerns about the integrity of court processes and fairness to other litigants.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centered on two interrelated considerations: first, the preservation of judicial resources and the orderly administration of the appellate system; second, the protection of the public and the court from unlicensed persons purporting to practice law. The Court found that Frick’s more than 100 filings in seven related matters, including attempts to withdraw and refile claims under different captions, demonstrated bad-faith litigation and abuse of process.

Having warned Frick once, the Court concluded that additional warnings would be futile. It therefore exercised its inherent power to craft a prophylactic remedy that balances two competing values: access to courts for bona fide pro se litigants and the need to discourage disruptive, duplicative litigation. By requiring attorney representation or court leave—and by mandating specific supporting affidavits—the Court created procedural gatekeeping mechanisms designed to screen out meritless filings early.

Extending restrictions to Stickney reflected the Court’s finding that she actively enlisted Frick’s unlicensed assistance and coordinated duplicate filings, thereby piggy-backing on his abusive conduct.

Impact

This decision establishes a clear precedent that appellate courts in Wisconsin will not hesitate to impose structured filing restrictions on pro se litigants who engage in pattern abuses of process. Future litigants must be mindful that repetitive, duplicative filings—especially those orchestrated by unlicensed intermediaries—can trigger procedural sanctions that limit their ability to e-file, require attorney representation, or mandate pre-filing leave.

The order may also deter unauthorized practice of law by individuals acting as “attorneys-in-fact” without a license. Courts in other jurisdictions will likely view this opinion as persuasive authority for employing similar measures to protect docket integrity and ensure that unlicensed actors do not exploit pro se status to circumvent ethical and procedural rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Original Action: A direct petition to a supreme court asking it to decide a matter rather than on appeal from a lower court.
• Supervisory Writ: An extraordinary remedy by which a higher court orders a lower court or tribunal to perform or refrain from specific acts.
• Abuse of Process: Using legal procedures for a purpose other than that for which they were designed—here, repeatedly refiling the same claims to harass or burden the court.
• Inherent Authority: A court’s power, derived from common law and its role in the judicial system, to manage its own procedures and protect its integrity.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Acting as an attorney—giving legal advice or filing legal documents—without a license to practice law.

Conclusion

In In re: Jamie J. Stickney, the Wisconsin Supreme Court articulated and applied a robust framework for curbing abusive pro se litigation. By dismissing the original action and imposing detailed filing restrictions, the Court reaffirmed its inherent authority to safeguard judicial resources and prevent unlicensed practice of law. This decision marks a significant development in procedural jurisprudence: pro se litigants must now navigate gatekeeping requirements if they seek to file repetitive or frivolous claims. The ruling underscores the balance between unfettered access to justice and the necessity of protecting the courts—and the public—from misuse of the legal process.