Stevens, J., dissenting
dinary writs, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. He thereafter filed another patently frivolous petition for certiorari, which we denied. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Whitfield's total number of frivolous filings to nine.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Whitfield's abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Whitfield from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens, dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, see Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison, 526 U. S. 811, 812 (1999) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.
Last modified: October 4, 2007