Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (1999)            1

                          Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DONALD H. BRANCATO v. PRISCILLA F. GUNN ET AL.
  ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
             No. 98­9913.   Decided October 12, 1999


  PER CURIAM.
  Pro se petitioner Brancato seeks leave to proceed  in
forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court.  We deny this
request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8.  Brancato is
allowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the
docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his
petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1.  We
also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for
certiorari from Brancato in noncriminal matters unless he
first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and sub-
mits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.
  Brancato has abused this Court's certiorari process.  On
June 7, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Brancato  in
forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certio-
rari.  See Brancato v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 527
U. S. - .  Prior to the Rule 39.8 denial, Brancato had filed
six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both frivolous
and had been denied without recorded dissent.  The in-
stant petition for certiorari thus brings Brancato's total
number of frivolous filings to eight.
  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).  Brancato's
abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal
cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly.  The order
therefore will not prevent Brancato from petitioning to
challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on
him.  The order will, however, allow this Court to devote



2 BRANCATO v. GUNN

                    STEVENS, J., dissenting

its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have
not abused our processes.

                                               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.