SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROY A. DAY 92-8788 v. __ DONALD P. DAY ROY A. DAY 92-8792 v. __ VINCENT BEKIEMPIS, JR. ROY A. DAY 92-8888 v. __ WALTER C. HEINRICH ET AL. ROY A. DAY 92-8905 v. __ GAF BUILDING MATERIALS CORP. ROY A. DAY 92-8906 v. __ WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL. ROY A. DAY 92-9018 v. __ NORMAN W. BLACK ET AL. ROY A. DAY 92-9101 v. __ J. TERRY DEASON ET AL. ROY A. DAY 93-5430 v. __ DONALD P. DAY ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 2 DAY v. DAY __ Nos. 92-8788, 92-8792, 92-8888, 92-8905, 92-8906, 92-9018, 92-9101 AND 93-5430. Decided October 12, 1993 PER CURIAM. Pro se petitioner Roy A. Day requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under ______ _________________ Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Day is allowed until November 2, 1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Day in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. Day is an abuser of this Court's certiorari process. We first invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Day in forma pauperis status last June. See In re Day, 509 U. S. _________________ _________ ___ (1993). At that time he had filed 27 petitions in the past nine years. Although Day was granted in forma pauperis status to file these petitions, all _________________ were denied without recorded dissent. Since we first denied him in forma ________ pauperis status last June, he has filed eight more petitions for certiorari with ________ this Court - all of them demonstrably frivolous. As we have recognized, "[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." In re _____ McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). Consideration of Day's ________ ____________ repetitious and frivolous petitions for certiorari does not promote this end. We have entered orders similar to the present one on previous occasions to prevent pro se petitioners from filing repetitious and frivolous requests for ______ certiorari, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. ___ ______ _____________________________________ (1992) (per curiam), and repetitious and frivolous requests for extraordinary _____________ relief. See In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 _____________ DAY v. DAY 3 __ (1991) (per curiam); In re McDonald, supra. ___________________________________ Day's refusal to heed our earlier warning requires us to take this step. His abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Day from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. But it will free this Court's limited resources to consider the claims of those petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process. It is so ordered. _________________