*1 811 CROSS v. PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON et al.

No. 98-8486. Decided May 24, 1999* Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Cross seeks leave proceed to in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. denyWe these re- quests as pursuant frivolous to Rule 39.8. Cross is allowed until June 14,1999, within which pay to the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit petitions his in compliance

with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any petitions further for certiorari from Cross in noncriminal matters unless he pays first the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and petitions submits his compliance in with Rule 33.1. Cross has repeatedly abused this Court’s proc- certiorari ess. On March 8, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Cross pauperis informa status with respect to petitions four for certiorari. See Cross v. Bay Pelican State Prison, post, p. (three 1003 eases); Cross v. post, Cambra, p. 1003. Before that time, Cross had filed petitions six for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied *Together with No. 98-8487, Cross v. Wieking, Clerk, United States District Northern, Court the for District California, also on of motion for leave to proceed pauperis. informa 812 *2 bring petitions 2 instant The dissent. recorded

without 4 has he and 12, to filings frivolous of number total Cross’ pending frivolous — patently them of filings additional —all Court. this before rea- filings prospective barring the order enter We Court Columbia of District v. in Martin of discussed sons curiam). of abuse Cross’ (per (1992) 1S.U. Appeals, 506 we cases, and in noncriminal been has certiorari of writ the not will therefore order The accordingly. sanction our limit sanc- criminal challenge to petitioning from Cross prevent because Similarly, him. on imposed be might which tions proce- writs extraordinary Court’s this abused not has Cross nonfrivolous filing from him prevent not will order dures, the however, will, order The writs. extraordinary for petitions claims the to resources limited its devote to Court this allow process. certiorari our abused not have who petitioners of ordered.

soisIt dissenting. Stevens, Justice of more uses the Court past, the in suggested I have As or- policing and entering, preparing, resources” "limited its pol- consistent a following by would it than kind this of ders are that petitions frivolous many the denying simply of icy District v. Martin See litigants. of number large aby filed (Ste- (1992) 41,S.U. Appeals, 506 Court Columbia of of dissent. respectfully I cited. eases and dissenting), vens, J.,