Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 1117

529ORD Unit: $PT3

[10-09-01 14:52:06] PGT: ORDPP (Prelim. Print)

1128

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

May 22, 2000

529 U. S.

of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40
days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.

No. 99M87. Zimbovsky v. Massachusetts. Motion to direct
the Clerk to ﬁle petition for writ of certiorari out of time under
this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.

No. 99M88. Tillis Trucking Co., Inc. v. Moses et al.; and
No. 99M89. Huertas Barbosa et al. v. Alejandro Bui-
trago Hospital et al. Motions to direct the Clerk to ﬁle peti-
tions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 99–1295. Gitlitz et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 10th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1097.]
Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint
appendix granted.

No. 99–8264. Delespine v. Johnson, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 1063] denied.

No. 99–9052. Samuel v. Nathan’s Famous Operating Corp.
C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 12, 2000, within
which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to
submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of
this Court.

No. 99–9267.
corpus denied.

In re Cavanaugh. Petition for writ of habeas

No. 99–9294.

In re Galloway. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of
habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
Justice Stevens dissents. See
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
id., at 4, and cases cited therein.