Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Zulu V., 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to file and process four actions that he contends were not being processed due to a pre-filing injunction imposed against him. However, Zulu X only provided the court with information relating to one of the four actions, and the orders provided did not mention the pre-filing injunction. As Zulu X did not provide evidence that the district court improperly refused to file or process any actions, the court denied his petition for mandamus relief since mandamus is only appropriate if there is a clear right to the relief requested.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-8088

    Original Title

    Zulu v., 4th Cir. (1996)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to file and process four actions that he contends were not being processed due to a pre-filing injunction imposed against him. However, Zulu X only provided the court with information relating to one of the four actions, and the orders provided did not mention the pre-filing injunction. As Zulu X did not provide evidence that the district court improperly refused to file or process any actions, the court denied his petition for mandamus relief since mandamus is only appropriate if there is a clear right to the relief requested.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Zulu V., 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to file and process four actions that he contends were not being processed due to a pre-filing injunction imposed against him. However, Zulu X only provided the court with information relating to one of the four actions, and the orders provided did not mention the pre-filing injunction. As Zulu X did not provide evidence that the district court improperly refused to file or process any actions, the court denied his petition for mandamus relief since mandamus is only appropriate if there is a clear right to the relief requested.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-8088

    In Re: SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, a/k/a Michael


    Wayne Montgomery,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-741-6-3AK)


    Submitted:

    January 23, 1996

    Decided:

    May 9, 1996

    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit


    Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to file and process four actions that Zulu
    X contends are not being processed because of a pre-filing injunction imposed against him after the actions at issue were filed.
    Zulu X, however, has only provided the court with copies of orders
    relating to one of the four actions, and none of the orders mention
    the pre-filing injunction. Mandamus relief is not appropriate unless the petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested. See
    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
    1988). Because Zulu X has provided no basis to conclude that the
    district court has improperly refused to file or process any action
    he has filed, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny
    his petition for mandamus relief.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like