Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 654.0

ORDERS 

807 

558  U. S. 

October  5,  2009 

pauperis  denied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule 
39.8.  As  petitioner  has  repeatedly  abused  this  Court’s  process, 
the  Clerk  is  directed  not  to  accept  any  further  petitions  in  non­
criminal matters 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  U. S.  1  (1992)  (per  curiam).  Justice  Stevens  dis­
sents.  See  id.,  at  4,  and  cases  cited  therein. 

No. 09–5436.  Crutcher v.  Williams, Warden, et al.  C.  A. 
9th  Cir.  Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pau­
peris  denied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule 
39.8. 

No.  09–5451.  Ruston  v.  Dallas  County,  Texas,  et  al. 
C. A. 5th Cir.  Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis  denied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule 
39.8.  Reported  below:  320  Fed.  Appx.  262. 

No.  09–5488.  Wallace  v.  Moberg  et  al.  C.  A.  9th  Cir. 
Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  de­
nied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–5512.  Brown  v.  Rivera,  Warden.  C.  A.  11th  Cir. 
Motion  of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  de­
nied,  and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8. 

No.  09–5576.  Smith  v.  Wrigley,  Superintendent,  New 
Castle Correctional Facility.  C. A. 7th Cir.  Motion of peti­
tioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  denied,  and  certio­
rari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8.  As  petitioner  has 
repeatedly  abused  this  Court’s  process,  the  Clerk  is  directed  not 
to  accept  any  further  petitions  in  noncriminal  matters  from  peti­
tioner  unless  the docketing  fee  required  by  Rule  38(a) is  paid  and 
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.  See Mar­
tin  v.  District  of  Columbia  Court  of  Appeals,  506  U. S.  1  (1992) 
(per  curiam).  Justice  Stevens  dissents.  See  id.,  at  4,  and 
cases  cited  therein. 

No. 09–5630.  Oduok v. Ferro et al.  C. A. 11th Cir.  Motion 
of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  denied, 
and  certiorari  dismissed.  See  this  Court’s  Rule  39.8.  Reported 
below:  303  Fed.  Appx.  790.