OCTOBER TERM, 1993
on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
No. 93-8312. Decided May 2, 1994
During the last three years alone, pro se petitioner Anderson has filed 22 separate petitions and motions, most for extraordinary writs. This Court denied all of them without recorded dissent. He was also denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to this Court's Rule 39.8, on the last three occasions that he has submitted petitions for extraordinary relief.
Held: Anderson is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case, and the Clerk is instructed not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from him unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33. For the reasons discussed in In re Demos, 500 U. S. 16, In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177, and In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, the Court feels compelled to enter this order, which will allow it to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused the Court's process.
Pro se petitioner Grant Anderson seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241 and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court's Rule 39. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis.* Petitioner is allowed until May 23, 1994, within which to pay the docketing fee 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 accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from petitioner unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.
*This Court's 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 4 Next
Last modified: October 4, 2007