Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04181/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04181-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zachary R.E. Rusk
Petitioner
State of Utah
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: ZACHARY R.E. RUSK, 

 Petitioner.

No. 16-4181

(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00333-TC)

(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 

the State of Utah, the defendant in the District of Utah’s case No. 2:16-CV-00333-TC, to 

preserve and not destroy, dispose of, or alter any evidence relating to that proceeding. 

Mr. Rusk contends he is entitled to relief because unnamed “confidential informants” 

have told him that “a number of defendants’ conspirators, corroborators, and colluders 

have deleted their emails” and have “admitted to deleting and disposing of evidence.” 

Pet. for Writ of Prohibition at 2.

The proceeding in which Mr. Rusk seeks to preserve evidence has ended, 

however. The district court dismissed the case in August 2016 on Eleventh Amendment 

immunity grounds and this court affirmed that dismissal in Rusk v. Utah, No. 16-4155, 

2016 WL 6246822, at *2 (10th Cir. Oct. 26, 2016). Accordingly, Mr. Rusk’s request for 

relief with regard to the district court proceeding is moot and must be dismissed. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 3, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4181 Document: 01019715450 Date Filed: 11/03/2016 Page: 1 
2

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

requires that 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). We conclude that 

Mr. Rusk has not advanced any non-frivolous argument in support of a writ of 

prohibition. We therefore deny him leave to proceed without the prepayment of fees.

The petition for writ of prohibition is dismissed as moot 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: 16-4181 Document: 01019715450 Date Filed: 11/03/2016 Page: 2