SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE FREDERICK W. BAUER
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
No. 99-5440. Decided October 18, 1999
   PER CURIAM.
   Pro se petitioner Bauer seeks leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court.  We deny this re-
quest as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8.  Bauer is allowed 
until November 8, 1999, within which to pay the docketing 
fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in 
compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1.  We also direct the 
Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or 
petitions for extraordinary writs from Bauer in noncrimi-
nal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required 
by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with 
Rule 33.1.
   Bauer has repeatedly abused this Court's certiorari and 
extraordinary writ processes.  On October 4, 1993, we 
invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Bauer in forma pauperis status 
with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ.  See 
In re Bauer, 510 U. S. 807.  Prior to the Rule 39.8 denial, 
Bauer had filed three petitions for certiorari and five 
petitions for extraordinary writs, all of which were both 
frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent.  
Since the Rule 39.8 denial, Bauer has filed two petitions 
for certiorari, both of which were also frivolous and denied 
without recorded dissent.  The instant petition for man-
damus thus brings Bauer's total number of frivolous fil-
ings to 12.
   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) (per curiam).  Bauer's abuse 
of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has 
been in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction 
accordingly.  The order therefore will not prevent Bauer 
from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which 
might be imposed on him.  The order will, however, allow 
this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of 
petitioners who have not abused our processes.
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.