SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ROBERT E. PRUNTY v. W. BROOKS ET AL.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
No. 99-5316. Decided October 12, 1999
   PER CURIAM.
   Pro se petitioner Prunty seeks leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court.  We deny this re-
quest as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8.  Prunty is al-
lowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the 
docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his 
petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1.  We 
also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for 
certiorari from Prunty in noncriminal matters unless he 
first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and sub-
mits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.
   Prunty has abused this Court's certiorari process.  On 
April 19, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Prunty in 
forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certio-
rari.  See Prunty v. Holschuh, 526 U. S. __.  At that time, 
Prunty had filed eight petitions for certiorari, all of which 
were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded 
dissent.  The instant petition for certiorari thus brings 
Prunty's total number of frivolous filings to 10.
   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).  Prunty's 
abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal 
cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly.  The order 
therefore will not prevent Prunty 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 Martin v. District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992) 
(STEVENS, J., dissenting), and cases cited, I respectfully 
dissent.