Whether the All Writs Act grants the circuit courts jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to review on the merits a district court's non-final denial of a motion to dismiss

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit purported to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to conduct appellate review of a non-final order of the district court denying dismissal of the complaint and to issue a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal. In re Kemp, 894 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018); App., infra, 2a-15a. The questions presented for review are: 1. Whether the All Writs Acts grants the circuit courts jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to review on the merits a district court’s non-final denial of a motion to dismiss. 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s review of the facial sufficiency of the § 1983 complaint below ignored the requirements of Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 8. Ct. 346 (2014), resulting in the improper summary dismissal of plaintiff's claims that defendants’ decision to preclude him from adjudicating a broad category of cases was: a. reached in violation of the requirements of procedural due process; and b. infected by racial bias. 3. Whether by placing on a plaintiff the burden to plead and prove a less restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Eighth Circuit contravened the holdings of this Court in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 184 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), and Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980). i