Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06360/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06360-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

Umred Srttt§ Ctm,t of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 2 7 1990 

KWAME BOADU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

v. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; 

and T.C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6360 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1427-P) 

) (W. D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Boadu, a federal inmate, filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus. In it he sought to compel the United States Parole 

Commission to conduct a rehearing of his initial parole 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6360 Document: 01019966726 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 1 
application in order to correct alleged procedural deficiencies. 

The district court dismissed Boadu's action for a writ of mandamus 

without prejudice to his right to file a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. We affirm. 

In response to Boadu's application for release on parole, the 

hearing examiners conducted an initial parole hearing in which, 

Boadu states, they failed to discuss with him his salient factor 

score, offense severity rating, and applicable guideline range. 

After the hearing, the examiners recommended that Boadu's sentence 

be continued to expiration, and this recommendation was accepted 

by the Regional Parole Commission and affirmed by the National 

Appeals Board of the Parole Commission. Boadu then filed a 

petition for a writ of mandamus in which he argued that the 

examiners' failure to discuss his sentencing information with him 

violates the Code of Federal Regulations and the Commission's own 

rules and procedures. He contended that a rehearing should 

therefore be ordered. 

Mandamus is "a drastic [remedy], to be invoked only in 

extraordinary situations." Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, 

Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 ( 1980) ( per cur iam). Accordingly, "we will 

not issue a writ unless the petitioner has no other adequate means 

to attain the relief he seeks, and unless his right to the 

issuance is 'clear and indisputable.'" Journal Pub. Co. v. 

Mechem, 801 F.2d 1233, 1235 (10th Cir. 1986) (quoting Kerr v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6360 Document: 01019966726 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 2 
United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). The 

district court found that because plaintiff had an adequate remedy 

under the habeas corpus statute, he did not meet the prerequisite 

for issuing a writ of mandamus. 

Boadu cites a number of cases to support his assertion that 

habeas corpus is not an exclusive remedy where, as in this case, a 

plaintiff is "challenging parole procedures but not demanding 

release or the granting of parole." Williams v. Ward, 556 F.2d 

1143, 1150 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 944 (1977). But 

most of those cases involved disputes over whether habeas corpus 

or section 1983 actions were more appropriate. See,~, 

Fernandez v. Trias Monge, 586 F.2d 848, 852 n.4 (1st Cir. 1978); 

Williams, 556 F.2d 1143; Haymes v. Regan, 525 F.2d 540, 542 (2d 

Cir. 1975). Thus, they did not raise the question which must be 

asked in mandamus cases, which is whether there is another 

adequate remedy. 

Boadu does cite to a case in which a court held that 

jurisdiction existed under the mandamus statute even though a 

remedy was available under habeas corpus. See Holmes v. United 

States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 1243 (7th Cir. 1976), overruled on 

other grounds, Solomon v. Benson, 563 F.2d 339 (7th Cir. 1977). 

In Holmes, the court found that the plaintiff had been "compelled 

to live with a stigma" because of his designation as a special 

offender, and that forcing the plaintiff to file a habeas action 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6360 Document: 01019966726 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 3 
"would serve only to perpetuate a gross injustice in favor of 

preserving judicially formulated niceties.'' Id. at 1248. The 

court also stated that "mandamus is all the more appropriate in 

this case because [the plaintiff's] attack 'is in effect 

challenging a nationwide policy of the Bureau of Prisons rather 

than the conditions of confinement in a single penitentiary.'" 

Id. (quoting Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 493 n.l (2d Cir. 

1975)). Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in granting mandamus 

relief. The exceptional circumstances of Holmes do not exist in 

this case. Here no "gross injustice" will arise by requiring 

Boadu to pursue a habeas action. Moreover, Boadu is not 

challenging a nationwide policy, but only the conditions of his 

own confinement. 

Boadu also argues that the habeas corpus statute does not 

provide him with an adequate remedy. Boadu is not correct on this 

point since, as the district court stated, habeas does give him an 

adequate remedy. See District Court Opinion at 2. Boadu 

therefore does not satisfy the mandamus prerequisite that he have 

"no other adequate means to attain the relief he seeks.'' Journal 

Pub. Co., 801 F.2d at 1235. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6360 Document: 01019966726 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 4 
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6360 Document: 01019966726 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 5