Third Circuit disposition — 261772np-pdf

ALD-133 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1772
___________
IN RE: ZIA H. SHAIKH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3:25-cv-18698)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 14, 2026
Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 4, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Zia Shaikh has filed numerous pro se actions concerning his divorce, custody
proceedings, and loss of professional licenses. He is the subject of filing injunctions
entered in the District of New Jersey (the DNJ). Shaikh filed in New York a civil RICO
action against his ex-wife (and her family), judges in New Jersey and Massachusetts, and
many others.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The RICO action was transferred to the DNJ. By then, the DNJ had entered
another filing injunction. In light of that filing injunction, Shaikh’s litigation history and
what the District Court deemed to be an abuse of the privilege of proceeding in forma
pauperis (IFP), the District Court directed him to show cause why IFP status should not
be denied in the RICO action and in two other cases pending in the DNJ.
After considering Shaikh’s response, the District Court entered an order denying
his IFP motion, denying as moot his pending motions for injunctive relief, and closing the
RICO case subject to reopening if Shaikh were to pay the filing fees within thirty days.
Shaikh did not within that thirty-day period pay the filing fees or file a notice of appeal.
Instead, he tried to file a motion for reconsideration—the District Court refused to docket
it—and, in this Court, filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus.
In his petition, as supplemented, Shaikh seeks an order directing the District Court
to address the substance of his motion to temporarily enjoin the federal government’s
enforcement of 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) (outlining passport restrictions for persons with state-
certified child support arrearage exceeding $2,500). That was one of the motions the
District Court denied as moot after denying Shaikh leave to proceed IFP. It is thus
inaccurate for Shaikh to assert that the motion “was never adjudicated.” Doc. 1-1 at 5.
In any event, the mandamus petition is denied because Shaikh fails to show a clear
right to relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). All
pending motions are denied.

-- 2 of 2 --