The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 17, 2023)
Mark T. Stinson, Sr., Petitioner, represented by Mark Stinson Sr.
United States, Respondent, represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar