SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


                                IN RE EILEEN VEY

                ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
                                               _________________
                      No. 96-8005.  Decided April 14, 1997

  PER CURIAM.


  Pro se petitioner Eileen Vey seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
  ______                                              _________________
requests this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating her 13-year-old
convictions.         This is not Vey's first filing in this Court.  In the past
6 1/2 years, she has filed 11 petitions for certiorari, 12 petitions for
extraordinary relief, and 2 applications for bail.  All of these have been
denied.  For the first 14 of those submissions, we granted her motions to
proceed in forma pauperis.  Since then, we have five times denied her leave to
        _________________
proceed in forma pauperis under this Court's Rule 39.8.*  
                                                       *
        _________________
  We again deny petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  Her various
                                               _________________
allegations are supported by nothing other than her own conclusory statements
that they are true.  Petitioner is allowed until May 5, 1997, within which to
pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in
compliance with Rule 33.1.  In light of her history of frivolous, repetitive
filings, we direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions
for extraordinary writs from petitioner unless she first pays the docketing fee
required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.  
























                    
____________________

   *Rule 39.8 provides: "If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari,
   *
jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or
malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis."
                                                            _________________

2                                   IN RE VEY

  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.
                                                               _________________

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.
_______