Opinion
No. MC08-5045.
July 17, 2009
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 24, 2008, the Honorable Franklin D. Burgess, United States District Court Judge, entered an order barring petitioner from litigating in this district unless he provides a "signed affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the [p]laintiff." Petitioner was also barred from proceeding in forma pauperis with a civil rights, Bivens, or Federal Tort Claim Act action unless he shows that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. At the end of April 2009, petitioner filed petitions for writs of mandamus in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and the Northern District of Illinois. Those actions were subsequently transferred to this district. Dkt. # 29, 32, and 34 respectively. Although the proposed petitions vary in some respects, they are substantially similar and seek judicial declarations that (a) petitioner has a right to "an immediate and swift though painless death" and (b) Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted legislation regarding the removal of aliens from the United States. These petitions are now before the undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the bar order.
The petition filed in the District of Columbia (Dkt. #32), for example, does not contain a certification that the claims have not yet been litigated and is missing pages 25-37 and 39.
In an almost identical litigation pending before the Honorable James L. Robart, United States District Judge, petitioner notified the court that he has been released from ICE custody and acknowledged that the claims asserted in the proposed petitions are now moot. See Marks v. Holder, C09-0748JLR (Dkt. # 14). The mandamus petitions first filed in the District of Connecticut (Dkt. # 29), District of Columbia (Dkt. # 32), and the Northern District of Illinois (Dkt. # 34) shall not, therefore, be permitted to proceed. The Clerk of Court shall docket this order in MC08-5045. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendants need take any further action with regards to these matters.