Imposition of Pro Se Filing Restrictions to Prevent Abusive Litigation Practices

Introduction

In the case of Stickney v. The Hon. Daniel G. Wood, No. 2025AP873-OA, decided May 21, 2025 by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the Court addressed a petition under Wis. Stat. § 809.70 seeking an original action. Petitioners Jamie J. Stickney and Tyler C. Frick, both appearing pro se, sought review of Adams County Circuit Court’s denial of indigency fee waivers. Over a short span, Mr. Frick had filed multiple duplicative and successive matters in this Court, prompting the high court to exercise its inherent authority to impose filing restrictions. The key issues were the petitioners’ pattern of repetitive filings, potential unauthorized practice of law, and whether the Supreme Court should regulate access to its docket to deter abusive litigation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to commence an original action and denied all other relief. It then imposed detailed filing restrictions on both Mr. Frick and Ms. Stickney. The restrictions:

Prohibit use of the e-filing system in any pro se civil matter related to specified underlying cases.
Require paper filings or representation by a Wisconsin-licensed attorney for those matters.
Mandate leave of court—and submission of a notarized affidavit—before any pro se filing in related matters.
Create “In re Tyler Frick” and “In re Jamie Stickney” miscellaneous files for tracking compliance.

The Court grounded these measures in its inherent power to curb abusive practices and protect judicial resources.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Minniecheske v. Griesbach, 161 Wis. 2d 743, 748 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1991): Recognizes the Court’s inherent authority to regulate abusive litigants and impose filing restrictions.
Wis. Stat. § 757.30 and SCR Chapter 23: Prohibit unauthorized practice of law. The Court observed Mr. Frick’s unlicensed “attorney-in-fact” role as potentially violative.
Wis. Stat. § 809.70: Governs original actions in the Supreme Court, which the petitioners attempted to invoke.

These authorities collectively empowered the Court to dismiss the petition and restrict future filings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Dismissal: Petitioners voluntarily withdrew and dismissed multiple actions; no justiciable controversy remained.
Abuse of Process: Mr. Frick’s more than 100 filings across seven matters in just over a month evidenced serial, duplicative litigation that burdened the Court. Despite warning, he repeated the conduct.
Inherent Authority and Public Interest: To safeguard its finite resources and deter misuse, the Court invoked its inherent power (as in Minniecheske) to impose restrictions tailored to the petitioners’ behavior.

Impact

This decision establishes a clear framework for imposing—and justifying—filing restrictions on pro se litigants who abuse appellate procedure. Future pro se petitioners will be on notice that:

Repeated, frivolous, or duplicative filings may trigger e-filing prohibitions.
Paper-only submissions and pre-approval by the Court may become mandatory.
Courts will monitor compliance via dedicated miscellaneous files.

Lawyers advising potentially indigent clients must be mindful of these constraints and the risk of unauthorized practice if they assist non-attorneys in pro se matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Original Action (Wis. Stat. § 809.70): A rare procedure to bring a new case directly before the Supreme Court, bypassing lower appellate routes.
Inherent Authority: The judiciary’s power to manage its own affairs, including curbing frivolous or abusive litigation without specific statutory authorization.
Filing Restrictions: Court-ordered limitations on a party’s ability to submit documents electronically or at all, designed to prevent misuse of judicial resources.
Unauthorized Practice of Law: Non-attorneys may not represent others or hold themselves out as legal practitioners; doing so can result in sanctions or restrictions.

Conclusion

Stickney v. Wood marks a significant step in Wisconsin jurisprudence, affirming that the Supreme Court will not tolerate serial, duplicative filings by pro se litigants. By articulating precise criteria for filing restrictions and establishing procedural safeguards, the Court balances open access with protection of judicial resources. This decision will guide trial and appellate courts in managing similar abuses and underscores the importance of licensed representation and good-faith litigation.