SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EILEEN VEY v. WILLIAM J. CLINTON,

PRESI DENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.

on motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis

No. 96–8796. Decided June 9, 1997

Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Eileen Vey seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that she may file a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Third Circuit dismissing her appeal as frivolous under 28 U. S. C. A. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (supp. 1997). Her underlying claims below, various alleged civil rights and RICO violations by the President of the United States, the First Lady, and numerous Senators, judges (including The Chief Justice), foreign officials, and private citizens, are patently frivolous. In the past 6 ½ years, she has filed 26 submissions in this Court, all of which have been denied. Just eight weeks ago, we went even further, instructing the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from her unless she first paid the required fees. See In re Vey, 520 U. S. ___ (1997). Since that order has proved insufficient to deter petitioner's abusive conduct, we again deny her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and now instruct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from petitioner in noncriminal matters unless she first complies with this Court's Rules. Petitioner is allowed until June 30, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

We enter the order barring future in forma pauperis filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992).

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.