Corcoran

This case was instituted in this court by the -filing of a petition averring, in substance, that the petitioner is the plaintiff in an action pending in the District Court for the First Division of the District of Alaska, and “that said District Court refuses to hear or determine said action,” and will continue to refuse unless compelled to hear and determine said case, and praying for a writ of mandamus. To an order of this court, requiring the District Court to show cause, if any there be, why the writ should not issue, a.return has been made by the judge of that court, by which it appears that the petitioner, while absent from Alaska, has *610 been trying to litigate his case through the. agency of a former practicing attorney who has been disbarred by that court, and that, the original complaint and an amended complaint filed in the action having been stricken from the files and the case stricken from the docket, for specified reasons which the court deemed to be sufficient, the court on its own motion ordered that the plaintiff be allowed 60 days in which to employ counsel qualified to practice and to move for a reinstatement of the case; .otherwise, the same to be finally…