Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/174

 502us1$$3Z 08-21-96 15:21:59 PAGES OPINPGT

16

OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Per Curiam

ZATKO v. CALIFORNIA on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis No. 91–5052. Decided November 4, 1991* Over the past 10 years, petitioner Zatko has filed 73 petitions with this Court, 34 within the last 2 years, and petitioner Martin has filed over 45 petitions, 15 within the last 2 years. Held: Zatko and Martin are denied in forma pauperis status in the instant cases, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 39.8. Their patterns of repetitious filings have resulted in an extreme abuse of the system by burdening the office of the Clerk and other members of the Court’s staff. Motions denied.

Per Curiam. Last Term, we amended Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to add the following: “39.8. If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Because in forma pauperis petitioners lack the financial disincentives—filing fees and attorney’s fees—that help to the Northern District of California, No. 91–5166, Zatko v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 91–5167, Zatko v. United States, No. 91–5244, Martin v. Mrvos, No. 91–5246, Martin v. Smith, No. 91–5307, Martin v. Delaware Law School of Widener University, Inc., No. 91–5331, Martin v. Walmer, No. 91–5332, Martin v. Townsend, No. 91–5401, Martin v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, No. 91–5416, Zatko v. California, No. 91–5476, Martin v. Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 91–5583, Martin v. Huyett, No. 91–5594, Zatko v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 91–5692, Zatko v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 91–5730, Zatko v. California, and No. 91–5732, Zatko v. California, also on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
 * Together with No. 91–5111, Zatko v. United States District Court for