US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

---

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

Per Curiam

LOWE v. POGUE ET AL.

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

No. 98-7591. Decided March 29, 1999*

Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his petitions for certiorari. Including these petitions, he has had 31 frivolous filings with this Court.

Held: Petitioner's motions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. He is barred from filing any further petitions for certiorari and for extraordinary writs in noncriminal cases unless he first pays the docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1.

Motions denied.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Lowe seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Lowe is allowed until April 19, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor petitions for extraordinary writs from Lowe in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Lowe has abused this Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. In November of last year and earlier this month, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Lowe in forma pauperis status. See Lowe v. Cantrell, 525 U. S. 1176 (1999); In re Lowe, 525 U. S. 960 (1998) (three cases). Before these 4 denials, Lowe had filed 23 petitions, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without re-

*Together with No. 98-7952, Lowe v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, No. 98-8073, Lowe v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and No. 98-8082, Lowe v. Woodall et al., also on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

---

274

corded dissent. The 4 instant petitions for certiorari thus bring Lowe's total number of frivolous filings to 31. He has several additional filings-all of them patently frivolouscurrently pending before this Court.

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). Lowe'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 Lowe from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions 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 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.

Full Text of Opinion