Whitaker v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 514 U.S. 208 (1995) (per curiam)
OCTOBER TERM, 1994
WHITAKER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY (MERRILL REESE, INC., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST)
on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
No. 94-7743. Decided April 17, 1995
Since 1987, pro se petitioner Whitaker has filed 24 claims for relief, including 18 petitions for certiorari, all of which have been denied without recorded dissent. Earlier this Term, this Court directed the Clerk of the Court not to accept further petitions for extraordinary writs from Whitaker in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33, In re Whitaker, 513 U. S. 1, 2, and warned Whitaker about his frequent filing patterns with respect to petitions for writ of certiorari, ibid.
Held: Pursuant to this Court's Rule 39.8, Whitaker is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case, and the Clerk is instructed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33. Like other similar orders this Court has issued, see, e. g., In re Sassower, 510 U. S. 4, this order will allow the Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused the Court's process.
Pro se petitioner Fred Whitaker has filed a petition for writ of certiorari and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.* Petitioner is allowed until May 8, 1995, to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to
*Rule 39.8 provides: "If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis."Page: Index 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: October 4, 2007