Inherent Authority to Impose Filing Restrictions on Abusive Pro Se Litigants

Introduction

In In re Tyler C. Frick, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed a recurring pattern of abusive filings by pro se litigants Tyler C. Frick and Jamie J. Stickney. The court was asked to consider an original-action petition under Wis. Stat. § 809.70, various motions to recast or withdraw that petition, and a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.” Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and imposed comprehensive filing restrictions on both parties. This commentary reviews the background of the dispute, the key issues, and the court’s new precedent establishing the scope of its inherent authority to curb abusive filings.

Background and Parties

Petitioners: Tyler C. Frick and Jamie J. Stickney, both acting pro se.
Respondent: The Hon. Daniel G. Wood, Circuit Court Judge, Adams County.
Underlying Circuit Matter: A quiet-title action in Adams County Circuit Court No. 2025CV21, in which Stickney and Frick sought indigency fee waivers.
Procedural History: Since April 14, 2025, Frick filed seven matters in this court, totaling more than 100 filings. Repeated petitions and supervisory‐writ attempts duplicated prior relief requests, often featuring voluntary dismissals followed by new filings.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin entered an order:

Dismissing the pro se petition for leave to commence an original action.
Denial of all other relief as to the petitioners, ex parte.
Imposing detailed filing restrictions on Frick and Stickney in light of their abusive filing practices.

The court’s order included an attachment specifying:

Prohibition on using the e‐filing system for certain civil matters related to the same underlying facts.
Requirement of Wisconsin‐licensed attorney representation or leave of court to file any future pro se documents.
Establishment of separate “miscellaneous” files to track motions for leave and any denials or grants under the new restrictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Minniecheske v. Griesbach, 161 Wis. 2d 743, 748 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1991). Recognized the court’s inherent authority to curb abusive litigation practices by imposing filing restrictions on litigants who repeatedly file frivolous or duplicative documents.
Wis. Stat. § 809.70 (Rule to initiate original action in Supreme Court). Governs petitions for original jurisdiction in the supreme court and the standards for leave to file.
Wis. Stat. § 757.30 and SCR Chapter 23. Prohibit unauthorized practice of law; relevant here because Frick purported to act as “attorney‐in‐fact” for Stickney despite lacking a license.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Abuse of Process: The volume, frequency, and duplicative nature of Frick’s filings—more than 100 submissions in seven matters, including over 50 in one day—demonstrated a clear pattern of procedural abuse. The court had previously warned Frick that continued serial filings would result in restrictions, but the conduct persisted.
Inherent Power to Regulate Filings: Citing its inherent supervisory authority and the precedent in Minniecheske, the court concluded it could curtail access to its e‐filing system and require leave for further pro se submissions. It extended these restrictions to Stickney, given her coordination with Frick and representations that he acted on her behalf.

Impact on Future Cases

The decision solidifies the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s authority to:

Identify and sanction abusive pro se litigants who burden limited judicial resources.
Impose specific procedural conditions—such as e‐filing bans and leave requirements—on future filings by those litigants.
Extend restrictions to co-petitioners or co-litigants when evidence shows coordinated abuse.

Going forward, practitioners and pro se parties will recognize that the court monitors serial or frivolous filings and will not hesitate to issue tailored restrictions to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Original Action (Wis. Stat. § 809.70): An extraordinary writ procedure allowing direct petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court when no adequate remedy exists in lower courts.
Supervisory Writ: A request to the court to supervise or correct actions of lower tribunals, often used to expedite relief from an interlocutory order.
Ex Parte: An order issued without requiring all parties to be heard, typically when immediate action is necessary and notice would defeat the purpose.
Unauthorized Practice of Law: When a non‐lawyer provides legal advice or represents another before a court, in violation of statutes or rules governing licensure.
Inherent Authority: The court’s power, independent of statute, to control its own processes and protect its functions from abuse.

Conclusion

In re Tyler C. Frick establishes a clear precedent: Wisconsin’s highest court will actively police abusive pro se practices by imposing case‐specific filing restrictions. By affirming its inherent authority and extending sanctions to coordinated co‐litigants, the court underscores the principle that access to justice carries a responsibility not to misuse judicial resources. Future litigants should take heed: repetitive, duplicative, or frivolous filings risk swift and stringent procedural consequences.