UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1334
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1355
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1412
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1421
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1437
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1438
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1439
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1441
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
2
No. 03-1455
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1486
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1494
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
No. 03-1499
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.
(MISC-03-1, CA-96-87-2, CA-02-40, CA-96-855-2, MISC-00-50-1,
MISC-00-123-1, CA-01-827-1, MISC-03-7, CA-00-45, CA-99-71,
CA-95-434, MISC-99-71)
3
Submitted: June 5, 2003 Decided: June 23, 2003
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur O. Armstrong, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for a writ of mandamus, Arthur
O. Armstrong seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A litigant
may proceed in any federal court without prepayment of fees if he
files an affidavit showing he is indigent. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
(2000). However, the court may dismiss the action if it concludes
that “the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action . . . is
frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). After reviewing the motions for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis filed in each mandamus petition, we
conclude Armstrong is not indigent. Accordingly, we deny the
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
petitions.
On May 8, 2003, by order to cause, Armstrong was ordered to
show why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous mandamus
petitions and enjoined from filing further actions. Armstrong filed
a response claiming his mandamus petitions were not frivolous.
After reviewing the petitions, we disagree. The mandamus petitions
and numerous motions are frivolous. In lieu of particularized fees
and costs and in light of Armstrong’s utter disregard for the
limited resources of this court, we order Armstrong to pay
sanctions in the amount of $500 payable to the clerk of the court,
as we have done in similar cases. See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943
(4th Cir. 1997). In addition, we enjoin Armstrong from filing any
5
further mandamus petitions in this court until (1) the sanctions
are fully paid, and (2) the court determines the action is not
frivolous.
We deny Armstrong’s motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and we dismiss the mandamus petitions. We also deny all
remaining pending motions. We sanction Armstrong and enjoin him
from filing future mandamus petitions in accordance with this
opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
6