Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 954.0

ORDERS 

1107 

558 U. S. 

January 11, 2010 

No.  09–7436.  Smith  v.  California  Department  of  Correc­
tions  and  Rehabilitation.  Ct.  App.  Cal.,  5th  App.  Dist.  Mo­
tion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  denied, 
and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–7667.  Mantilla  v.  United  States.  C.  A.  3d  Cir. 
Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  de­
nied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–7673.  Millhouse  v.  Grondolsky,  Warden.  C.  A.  3d 
Cir.  Motion of  petitioner for leave  to proceed in  forma pauperis 
denied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 
Reported  below:  331  Fed.  Appx.  108. 

Miscellaneous  Orders 

No.  09A648.  Hollingsworth  et  al.  v.  Perry  et  al.  Upon 
consideration  of  the  application  for  stay,  presented  to  Justice 
Kennedy,  and  by  him  referred  to  the  Court,  it  is  ordered  that 
the  order  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern 
District  of  California,  case  No.  3:09–cv–02292,  permitting  real-
time  streaming  is  stayed  except  as  it  permits  streaming  to  other 
rooms  within  the  conﬁnes  of  the  courthouse  in  which  the  trial  is 
to  be  held.  Any  additional  order  permitting  broadcast  of  the 
proceedings  is  also  stayed  pending  further  order  of  this  Court. 
To  permit  further  consideration  in  this  Court,  this  order  will 
remain  in  effect  until  Wednesday,  January  13,  2010,  at  4  p.m. 
eastern  time. 

Justice  Breyer,  dissenting. 
I  agree  with  the  Court  that  further  consideration  is  warranted, 
and I am pleased that the stay is time limited.  However, I would 
undertake  that  consideration  without  a  temporary  stay  in  place. 
This  stay  prohibits  the  transmission  of  proceedings  to  other  fed­
eral  courthouses.  In  my  view,  the  Court’s  standard  for  granting 
a  stay  is  not  met.  See  Conkright  v.  Frommert,  556  U. S.  1401, 
1402–1403  (2009)  (Ginsburg,  J.,  in  chambers).  In  particular,  the 
papers  ﬁled,  in  my  view,  do  not  show  a  likelihood  of  “irrepara­
ble  harm.” 

With  respect,  I  dissent. 

No.  D–2458.  In  re  DeMarco.  Leo  P.  DeMarco,  of  Malden, 
Mass.,  having  requested  to  resign  as  a  member  of  the  Bar  of  this