Mandamus Order - In re: David Alan Schum (D.C. Cir.)
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT____________
September Term, 2012
Filed On:May 31, 2013
In re: David Alan Schum,
BEFORE:Henderson, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
O R D E RUpon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
motion for leave to seal the in forma pauperis motion and supporting affidavit, and the
petition for writ of mandamus, it is
ORDEREDthat the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It
FURTHER ORDEREDthat the motion for leave to seal the in forma pauperis
motion and affidavit be denied. Petitioner has shown no basis to warrant sealing these
judicial records, which are standard forms that he submitted to the court because he
wished to obtain the privilege of commencing his action without prepayment of the filing
fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See Johnson v. Greater Southeast Comty.
Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (emphasizing the “strong
presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings”); see also Sturdza v.
United Arab Emirates, No. 07-7034 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2007) (denying motion for leave
to file ex parte a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis); Wolfe v. Graham, No.
95-7137 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 1995) (denying motion to seal motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis). It is
FURTHER ORDEREDthat the petition be denied. Petitioner has not shown that
he has a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace
Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.