Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04183/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC
Respondent
Zachary R.E. Rusk
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: ZACHARY R.E. RUSK, 

 Petitioner.

No. 16-4183

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00853-JNP-EJF)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes before the court on the petition for writ of prohibition filed by 

Zachary Rusk. He seeks an order of this court directing the federal district court to order 

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, the defendant in the District of Utah’s case 

No. 2:15-CV-00853-JNP-EJF, to preserve and not destroy, dispose of, or alter any 

evidence relating to that proceeding. The petition for writ of prohibition is identical to 

petitions Mr. Rusk has filed in No. 16-4181 and No. 16-4182 relating to two other cases 

he filed in federal court in the District of Utah.

“[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be 

granted only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and 

undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of discretion.” Univ. of 

Tex. v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1339 (10th Cir. 1996) (alteration in original) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Mr. Rusk contends he is entitled to relief because unnamed 

“confidential informants” have told him that “a number of defendants’ conspirators, 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 31, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4183 Document: 01019713422 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 1 
2

corroborators, and colluders have deleted their emails” and have “admitted to deleting 

and disposing of evidence.” Pet. for Writ of Prohibition at 2. These frivolous, 

conclusory allegations do not come close to meeting the high standard necessary for 

relief.

Mr. Rusk also seeks leave to proceed without the prepayment of fees. This 

requires he demonstrate not only a financial inability to pay, but also a reasoned, 

non-frivolous argument on the law and the facts in support of his right to relief. See

Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Because Mr. Rusk has 

not advanced any non-frivolous argument in support of a writ of prohibition, we deny 

him leave to proceed without the prepayment of fees.

The petition for writ of prohibition is dismissed as frivolous and the motion to 

proceed without the prepayment of fees is denied. Mr. Rusk is directed to pay forthwith 

to the Clerk of this court the $500.00 filing fee for this proceeding. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4183 Document: 01019713422 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 2