Legal Opinion
In Re Sindram
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 19, 1991No. 90-6051PublishedCited by 294 opinions
1Per curiam
Pro se petitioner Michael Sindram seeks an extraordinary-writ pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1651 and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. This is petitioner’s 25th filing before this Court in the October 1990 Term alone. Pursuant to our decision in In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989), we deny the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.
Petitioner is no stranger to this Court. In the last three years, he has filed 43 separate petitions and motions, includ*178ing 21 petitions for certiorari, 16 petitions for rehearing, and 2 petitions for extraordinary…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- In re McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
3Cited by294 opinions
- Martin v. District of Columbia Court of AppealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Lewis v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Melvin P. Deutsch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Miller v. DonaldCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- In Re Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, Movant. In Re George Sassower, MovantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
289 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.