Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04166/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fidelity Brokerage Services
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. 16-4166

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

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

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

_________________________________

Zachary Rusk seeks a writ of mandamus “commanding the district court to render 

a ruling on the motion to dismiss.” Pet. at 1. The defendant, Fidelity Brokerage 

Services, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss on January 12, 2016. Rusk responded on 

January 13 and Fidelity replied on January 26. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 

34 (1980) (per curiam). It is not warranted unless (1) the petitioner has “a clear right to 

the relief sought,” (2) the district court has “a plainly defined” duty “to do the action in 

question,” and (3) there is “no other adequate remedy available.” Johnson v. Rogers, 

917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir. 1990). The “[p]etitioner must also show that his right to 

the writ is clear and indisputable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Fidelity’s motion to dismiss has been at issue for about nine months. In that time, 

there have been more than thirty filings by the parties (primarily Rusk), nearly a dozen 

court rulings, and two magistrate recusals. Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4166 Document: 01019710479 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 
2

the district court has “persistently and without reason refuse[d] to adjudicate” Rusk’s 

case. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scholes, 601 F.2d 1151, 1154 (10th Cir. 1979). 

Because Rusk has failed to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, we 

deny his petition.

We grant Rusk’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. But 

because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) allows us to excuse only prepayment of fees, Rusk 

remains obligated to pay all filing and docketing fees to the clerk of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4166 Document: 01019710479 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2