ORDER

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

By these cases, commenced in the court's original jurisdiction, petitioner alleges numerous petty grievances against prison officials. In each case, petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The underlying pleadings are vague, rambling, replete with legalistic jargon, and characteristic of numerous papers filed previously by petitioner in other cases. Since 1980, petitioner has commenced fifty four cases in the court's original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed (See Appendix A).

The subject matter of these cases is conspicuously inappropriate for this court's original jurisdiction. For that reason they are frivolous. Those who invoke the court's jurisdiction are charged with both the knowledge of the limits of that jurisdiction and the rules of procedure. We conclude that petitioner has long engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive. Appropriate restriction on a litigant's ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis is within the inherent powers of the court. In re McDonald, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir. 1986).

Because petitioner has repeatedly abused the original jurisdiction of this court, we direct the clerk not to accept further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs which allege only grievances against prison officials unless the required docketing fee is paid and all other rules of procedure have been satisfied.

It is further ordered that petitioner will be allowed fifteen days from the date of this order to pay the required filing fee in each of the above cases. If petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee within the time allowed, these cases will be dismissed without further notice.

APPENDIX A

Termination Date Case Nos. Opposing Party Case Type Disposition 08/15/80 80-1596 Meachum Appeal Dismissed 02/26/81 80-1034 Parke Appeal Reversed 05/04/83 82-2377 Leo Appeal Affirmed 02/16/84 83-2631 Murphy, Warden Appeal Dismissed 03/15/84 84-8006/ West, Warden Mandamus Denied 84-1355 09/27/84 84-8039 U.S. Social Security Mandamus Denied 11/01/84 84-1692 Gobel Appeal Affirmed 11/14/84 84-8049/ USDC-WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 84/2576 11/27/84 84-1466 Franklin Appeal Dismissed 03/04/85 84-2143 Brewer Appeal Affirmed 03/06/85 84-2364 Richards Appeal Affirmed 04/10/85 85-8010/ Brown, Warden Mandamus Denied 85-1534 07/10/85 84-1673 Angelone Appeal Dismissed 07/12/85 85-8021/ West, Warden Mandamus Denied 85-2033 08/26/85 85-8047/ USDC-WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 85-2276 10/01/85 85-8040/ Brown, Warden Mandamus Denied 85-2451 10/25/85 85-1827 Brown, Warden Appeal Dismissed 11/25/85 85-1820 Kirkpatrick Appeal Dismissed 12/06/85 84-2153 McDaniel Appeal Affirmed 02/24/86 85-2449 Brown, Warden Appeal Dismissed 04/02/86 86-8018/ WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 86-1502 04/14/86 86-8020/ WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 86-1565 04/25/86 85-1762 Unknown Proprietor Appeal Affirmed 04/25/86 86-8025/ Secretary of HHS Mandamus Denied 86-1575 05/30/86 86-8040/ Barton Mandamus Denied 86-1804 06/02/86 86-8031/ Maynard, Warden Mandamus Denied 86-1816 06/02/86 86-8032/ Douglas, Warden Mandamus Denied 86-1818 06/02/86 86-8036/ USDC WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 86-1814 06/20/86 86-8045/ USDC WD/Okla. Mandamus Denied 86-1920 06/27/86 86-8046/ Douglas, Warden Mandamus Denied 86-1952 07/21/86 84-1162 Barnes Appeal Affirmed 07/21/86 84-2558 Rolland Appeal Affirmed 08/08/86 86-8039/ USDC Mandamus Denied 86-2178 08/11/86 86-8055/ Warden Mandamus Denied 86-2183 08/11/86 86-8041/ USDC Mandamus Denied 86-2181 09/11/86 86-1812 Shillinger Appeal Dismissed 09/18/86 86-8071/ USDC Mandamus Denied 86-2379 09/18/86 86-8076/ USDC Mandamus Denied 86-2383 09/26/86 86-8072/ Okla. Dept/Correct. Mandamus Denied 86-2416 10/22/86 85-2206 Brown, Warden Appeal Affirmed 10/24/86 85-2627 Naman Appeal Affirmed 10/30/86 86-8080/ Williams (really Mandamus/Prohibition Denied 86-2582 Johnson) v. Miller 11/03/86 86-8088/ Maynard, Warden Mandamus/Prohibition Denied 86-2592 11/03/86 86-2592 Maynard Mandamus Denied 11/05/86 86-8086/ State of Oklahoma Mandamus Denied 86-2605 11/25/86 86-8101/ Maynard, Warden Prohibition/Habeas Denied 86-2714 Corpus 12/05/86 86-8092/ Both Oklahomas Mandamus Denied 86-2776 12/15/86 86-8099/ Maynard, Warden Mandamus/Prohibition/ Denied 86-2813 Habeas Corpus 01/05/87 86-8109/ USDC Mandamus Denied 87-1000 01/14/87 86-8114/ Oklahoma Department Mandamus Denied 87-1061 01/14/87 86-8124 USDC Mandamus Dismissed 02/25/87 86-2644 Shillinger Appeal Dismissed 03/23/87 86-2256 Chadwick Appeal Dismissed 03/25/87 87-8016 State of Oklahoma Habeas Corpus Fee Paid 06/16/87 86-2726 Meachum Appeal Affirmed 06/29/87 86-2831 Hill Appeal Dismissed 08/07/87 87-8039 Saffle Mandamus Denied 08/26/87 86-2739 Shillinger Appeal Affirmed 10/08/87 87-8027/ USDC Mandamus Denied 87-2463 10/21/87 87-8045/ USDC Mandamus Denied 88-2627 10/22/87 86-2751 Shillinger Appeal Dismissed 10/28/87 87-8044/ Gray Mandamus Denied 87-2583 10/29/87 87-2584 Oklahoma Department Appeal Dismissed 10/29/87 87-8021/ Oklahoma Department Prohibition Denied 87-2015 10/29/87 86-2366 Hartless Appeal Dismissed 12/17/87 87-2012 Oklahoma Department Appeal Dismissed 03/22/88 88-1407 USDC Prohibition Denied 04/13/88 87-2654 Warren Appeal Dismissed 04/28/88 87-2656 Bynum Appeal Dismissed 04/28/88 87-1199 Sup. Ct. of Wyoming Appeal Affirmed 08/26/88 87-2550 Gorman Appeal Dismissed 12/27/88 88-1933 Cowley Appeal Affirmed

Case Pending (March 8, 1989): 87-8065 Cowley Habeas Corpus 87-8070 USDC Mandamus 88-8001 Cowley Mandamus 88-8017 Cowley Mandamus 88-8027 State of Oklahoma Mandamus 88-8039 Cowley Mandamus 88-8040 Preston Mandamus 88-8077 Cowley Mandamus 88-8085 Cowley Mandamus 89-505 State of Oklahoma Habeas Corpus 89-511 Bishop Prohibition 89-512 Bishop Prohibition 89-513 Yeager Prohibition 89-515 Yeager Habeas Corpus 89-516 Shipman Prohibition