Case ID: us_522/html/0446-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARTEAGA v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-6749.
    Decided February 23, 1998
    
    
      
       Together with Arteaga v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al., also on motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Lorenzo Arteaga seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of petitioner’s complaint for failure to amend his complaints pursuant to the District Court’s instructions.

We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed, until March 16,1998, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 38.1. For the reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noneriminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Petitioner has filed 20 petitions with this Court, 16 in the past two Terms. All have been denied without recorded dissent. In 1997, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner in forma pauperis status. Arteaga v. California, post, p. 804. Petitioner nevertheless has filed another frivolous petition with this Court. In his petition and supplemental petition, Arteaga appears to assert that he is an innocent person falsely imprisoned and to allege numerous constitutional violations and conspiracies among prison, court, and government officials. He does not address the reasons for the . District Court’s dismissal.

Accordingly, we enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner in noncriminal cases for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

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.