
    Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, of Joseph Harp’s Correctional Center, et al., Respondent-Appellee. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden; Unknown Named Warden of Jess Dunn Correctional Center; Gary Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, Respondent. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; Secretary of Health and Human Services, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center; Gary Maynard, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Sam PRESTON, Unit Manager; Jack Cowley, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY; Joann Shepard, Health Administrator; D. Bradley, Dental Assistant; Dr. R.L. Warren, Dentist, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden; Gary Maynard, Director, D.O.C.; Henry Bellmon, Oklahoma State Governor; Robert Macy, District Attorney; Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board Members; Clarence Harkins, Jr.; Augusta E. Mann, Marzee Douglass, Carl B. Hamm, Farrell Hatch, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; William F. Yeager, Warden; Gary F. Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Bernie BISHOP, Principal and Leisure Library Supervisor; Janice Brewer, Law Librarian, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Bernie BISHOP, Supervisor; William F. Yeager, Warden, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. William F. YEAGER, Warden; John Wilson, Unit Manager; Sergeant Wheats, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. William F. YEAGER, Warden; John S. Wilson, Unit Manager; G.D. Lowe, Property-Officer, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Mark SHIPMAN, Correctional Case Manager 2CD, Respondent.
    Nos. 87-8065, 87-8070, 88-8001, 88-8017, 88-8027, 88-8039, 88-8040, 88-8077, 88-8085, 89-505, 89-511, 89-512, 89-513, 89-515 and 89-516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    April 11, 1989.
   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  