SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 92-8933 IN RE GEORGE SASSOWER GEORGE SASSOWER 92-8934 v. __ MEAD DATA CENTRAL INC., ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 92-9228 v. __ D. MICHAEL CRITES, ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5045 v. __ KRIENDLER & RELKIN, ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5127 v. __ LEE FELTMAN, ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5128 v. __ PUCCINI CLOTHES, ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5129 v. __ A. R. FUELS, ET AL. GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5252 v. __ JANET RENO GEORGE SASSOWER 93-5358 v. __ ROBERT ABRAMS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK 2 IN RE SASSOWER 93-5596 IN RE SASSOWER ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Nos. 92-8933, 92-8934, 92-9228, 93-5045, 93-5127, 93-5128, 93-5129, 93-5252, 93-5358 AND 93-5596. Decided October 12, 1993 PER CURIAM. Pro se petitioner George Sassower requests leave to proceed in forma ______ ________ pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule ________ 39.8. Sassower is allowed until November 2, 1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraordinary writs from Sassower in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. Prior to this Term, Sassower had filed 11 petitions in this Court over the last three years. Although Sassower was granted in forma pauperis status to _________________ file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent.* During the * last four months, Sassower has suddenly increased his filings. He currently has ten petitions pending before this Court - all of them patently frivolous. Although we have not previously denied Sassower in forma pauperis status _________________ pursuant to Rule 39.8, we think it appropriate to enter an order pursuant to Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. ___ ______ _____________________________________ ____________________ *See Sassower v. New York, 499 U. S. 966 (1991) (certiorari); In re * ________ ________ _____ Sassower, 499 U. S. 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. ________ ______________ 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); Sassower v. Mahoney, 498 U. S. 1108 (1991); ________ _______ In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 904 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 498 ______________ ______________ U. S. 1081 (1991) (habeas corpus); In re Sassower, 498 U. S. 1081 (1991) (manda- ______________ mus/prohibition); Sassower v. Court of Appeals for D.C. Cir., 498 U. S. 1094 ________ ______________________________ (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Brieant, 498 U. S. 1094 (1991) (certiorari); ________ _______ Sassower v. Thornburgh, 498 U. S. 1036 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Dillon, ________ __________ ________ ______ 493 U. S. 979 (1989) (certiorari). IN RE SASSOWER 3 (1992). In both In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam) and In re _____________ ____________ _____ McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), we entered orders similar to this ________ _____________ one without having previously denied petitioners' motions to proceed in forma ________ pauperis under Rule 39.8. For the important reasons discussed in Martin, ________ ______ Sindram, and McDonald, we feel compelled to enter the order today barring _______ ________ prospective filings from Sassower. Sassower's abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Sassower from petitioning to challenge criminal sanc- tions which might be imposed on him. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process. It is so ordered. ________________ JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GINSBURG took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion in No. 93-5252, Sassower v. Reno. ________ _____