Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Supreme Court

Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

522 U.S. 446, 118 S. Ct. 903, 139 L. Ed. 2d 892, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 838, 98 Daily Journal DAR 1747, 66 U.S.L.W. 3553, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 883

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 23, 1998·No. 97-6749·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

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 [447]*447with 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [447]*447with 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.

Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 522 U.S. 446, 118 S. Ct. 903, 139 L. Ed. 2d 892, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 838, 98 Daily Journal DAR 1747, 66 U.S.L.W. 3553, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 883 (1998).

Pincite

522 U.S. 446 (Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related