517 U.S. 343116 S.Ct. 1311134 L.Ed.2d 464
LIANG-HOUH SHIEHv.EDWARD KAKITA et al.
No. 95-7587

LIANG-HOUH SHIEH
v.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7588
LIANG-HOUH SHIEH
v.
JEROLD KRIEGER et al.
No. 95-7589
On motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Nos. 95-7587, 95-7588 and 95-7589.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 1, 1996
Per Curiam.


1
In these three petitions for certiorari, pro se petitioner Liang-Houh Shieh requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule  39 of this Court.  We deny his requests pursuant to Rule 39.8.  Shieh is  allowed until April 22, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fees  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 from Shieh in noncriminal matters unless he  pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.


2
Shieh has abused this Court's certiorari process.  In March 1996, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Shieh in forma pauperis status. See  Shieh v. State Bar of California, 516 U. S. ___.  To date, Shieh has  filed 10 petitions in this Court in less than three years.  All have  been both patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent.


3
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).  Shieh's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in  noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly.  The order  will not prevent Shieh from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions  which might be imposed against him.  The order will, however, allow this  Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.


4
It is so ordered.


5
djq  Justice Stevens, dissenting.


6
For the reasons I have previously expressed, I respectfully dissent.


7
See Jones v. ABC-TV, 516 U. S. ___, ___ (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Attwood v. Singletary, 516 U. S. ___, ___ (1996) (Stevens,  J., dissenting); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.  S. 1, 4 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Zatko v. California, 502 U. S.  16, 18 (1991) (Stevens, J.,dissenting).

