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

                          Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
       ROBERT E. PRUNTY v. W. BROOKS ET AL.
  ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
             No. 99­5316.   Decided October 12, 1999

  PER CURIAM.
  Pro se petitioner Prunty seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court.  We deny this re-
quest as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8.  Prunty is al-
lowed 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 Prunty 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.
  Prunty has abused this Court's certiorari process.  On
April 19, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Prunty  in
forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for certio-
rari.  See Prunty v. Holschuh, 526 U. S. __.  At that time,
Prunty had filed eight petitions for certiorari, all of which
were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded
dissent.  The instant petition for certiorari thus brings
Prunty's total number of frivolous filings to 10.
  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).  Prunty's
abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal
cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly.  The order
therefore will not prevent Prunty from petitioning to
challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on
him.  The order will, however, allow this Court to devote
its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have
not abused our processes.
                                                    It is so ordered.



2                      PRUNTY v. BROOKS

                       STEVENS, J., dissenting

     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.