COMES NOW Petitioner, Marc Perkel, to petition the Court for a Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Title 28 U. S. C. § 1292 to order the United States District Court to treat the Petitioner with common courtesies and respect due citizens of the United States and to order the District Court to take the necessary steps to proceed with the underlying case. In support of this writ, Petitioner states as follows:

1. On April 1^st 1997 I filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division. The suit challenged the constitutionality of several Missouri statutes in the classification of "Rights of Married Women" on the basis of the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment.
2. The parties filed various motions, the last of which was on May 22^nd 1997.
3. On August 13^th 1997 I sent a letter to the court inquiring as to the status of the case. The court did not reply.
4. On November 3^rd 1997 I sent a second letter to the court inquiring as to the status of the case. Again, the court did not reply.
5. On January 12^th 1998 I sent a third letter to the court inquiring as to the status of the case. In this letter I pointed out that the Defendant had also written about the delay. Again, the court did not reply.
6. I contend that the court has a duty of common courtesy to answer the necessary and legitimate inquiries of the litigants as to the status of this case. I further contend that the court has a duty to be reasonably prompt in processing motions and that this case has been unreasonably delayed without explanation.
7. If the Court is stalling, the Court is violating my 14^th Amendment right to due process of law.
8. I invite the Defendant to join the Plaintiff as Petitioner in this action.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner asks that this court will:

1. Make a finding that the litigants, as citizens of the United States, have a right to be treated respectfully by the Court, and therefore the Court has a moral duty of common courtesy to promptly answer the legitimate inquiries of litigants.
2. Make the necessary and appropriate orders to resolve the problem so as to allow this case to continue to its conclusion.

__________________________________

Marc Perkel * Petitioner * 02-17-98

Last April I filed a civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division. The suit challenged the constitutionality of several Missouri statutes in the classification of "Rights of Married Women" on the basis of sexual discrimination and is virtually identical to the case of Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S. Ct. 1102, 59 L. Ed. 2d 306. Motions to dismiss were filed by the Defendant, Laura M. Vogel - Assistant Attorney General, who represents the State of Missouri, the Defendant in this action. The last motion was filed on May 22^nd 1997. Since then both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have been waiting on the court to do something. I sent the Court three letters inquiring as to the status of the case. None of these letters were answered. The Defendant sent a letter to the court reminding the court of the pending motions. Plaintiff believes that the Defendant was also prodding the Court to do something. It has been 8 months since the last motion and it appears that the court is stalling. I contend that it isn't proper for a court to take 8 months to decide a motion to dismiss without some sort of explanation as to why it's taking so long. I feel that I have an absolute right to common courtesy and that the court is violating my right to common courtesy by not even acknowledging my inquires as to the status of my case.

In the case of IN RE: UNIVERSAL MINERALS INC, 755 F.2d 309, the Court held that:

I contend that common courtesy is a two way street. That common courtesy dictates that when the court receives a request for information from a litigant, especially a pro se litigant, that common courtesy would dictate that the request be at least acknowledged.

The courts have no power except that power that flows from the people. The courts are here only to serve the people and exist only at the pleasure of the people. All power of government comes from the people. The courts exist for the sole purpose to serve us and in doing so judges have a duty of common courtesy to the litigants before them. America is not a monarchy where subjects come before the King on bended knee. We are a democracy where judges serve, not rule. A citizen has a duty to show proper respect for the court. But the court has an even greater duty to show proper respect for a citizen in order to avoid the appearance of judicial arrogance. Especially when the citizen is not represented by counsel.

I do not know why the court ignores the requests for information by the litigants. Perhaps the court is making an honest mistake. Perhaps a file is misplaced or there is a flaw in the office procedures of the court. I am mindful of the work load of the court and that the United States Senate is seriously behind in its duties to confirm federal judges. That is why I am only asking this court to take appropriate measures to resolve this problem.

However, I have had in the past a number of problems with judges of the State of Missouri who do not play by the rules. I have observed that some judges are openly hostile towards people who represent themselves. I am therefore very sensitive to this issue and thousands of other pro se litigants feel as I do. I therefore feel that it is in the best interests of society if this court would make a finding, and publish it, that the court has a moral duty of common courtesy to the litigants that appear before it.

__________________________________

Marc Perkel * Petitioner * 02-17-98