Wilson; Cal. Bd. of Admin., Public Employees' Ret. System v. Wilson v. Consolidated Publishing Co. Wilson v. Del Monte .... Wilson v. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB Wilson; Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Wilson v. South Carolina Wilson v. United States Wilson County; Bassler v. Wilton; McGovern v. Wilusz; Phillipe v. Windham; Quiroz v. ... Winfield v. Carpenter Wint v. United States Winters v. Iowa State Univ. Winters v. United States Wisconsin; Frederick v. 846 892,896,900,1006 824 873 845 819 861,1029 839 1062 923,1016 826,874 879 Wisconsin; Jenkins v. Wisconsin; Kirsch v. 1002 987 Wisconsin v. Lac Du Flambeau Band, Lake Super. Chippewas Wisconsin Bd., Attorney's Professional Responsibility; Heilprin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.; Verdugo v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd., Mendocino Cty.; Spaletta v. Indemnity Co. v. Workman v. Oklahoma Worstell v. United States W. R. Grace & Co.; Lowry v. 885 883 1059 1053 890 850 865 891 1055 874 1005 853,1029 957 890 849 909 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1992 MARTIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. ON MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED No. 92-5584. Decided November 2, 1992* Since this Court's Rule 39.8 was invoked in November 1991 to first deny pro se petitioner Martin in forma pauperis status, he has filed 11 petitions for certiorari, all but one of which have been demonstrably frivolous. Held: Martin is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant cases, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. Martin is a notorious abuser of the Court's certiorari process, and consideration of his repetitious and frivolous petitions does not allow the Court to allocate its resources in a way that promotes the interests of justice. Motions denied. PER CURIAM. Pro se petitioner James L. Martin requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to our Rule 39.8. Martin is al *Together with No. 92-5618, Martin v. McDermott et al., also on motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. |