Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01053/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Julia Hook
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

In re: MARY JULIA HOOK, 

 Petitioner. 

No. 16-1053 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00955-RM-CBS) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, O’BRIEN, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Mary Julia Hook petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, taking issue with 

certain interlocutory rulings in the underlying action involving tax and private lien 

priorities affecting her real property. In particular, Ms. Hook seeks a writ directing the 

district court either to dismiss the action in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction or to 

reinstate counterclaims she had unsuccessfully asserted against the United States. We 

deny the petition. 

“[C]ourts of appeals only rarely intervene in ongoing trial court proceedings, and 

winning a writ of mandamus [or prohibition1

] poses a special challenge.” Feinberg v. 

C.I.R., 808 F.3d 813, 815 (10th Cir. 2015). To secure a writ, the petitioner must show “a 

clear and indisputable entitlement” to the relief sought and convince this court that 

exercising its discretion to intervene and grant such relief is “appropriate in the interests 

 1

 We need not pause over the technical characterization of the remedy sought, 

see generally Jenkins v. Weinshienk, 670 F.2d 915, 917 n.1 (10th Cir. 1982), as it would 

not alter our analysis here, see In re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266, 1268 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(noting similarity of standards for mandamus and prohibition). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1053 Document: 01019577279 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 1 
2 

of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And, more directly to the point here, 

the petitioner “must show that no other adequate means exist to secure [that] relief.” Id. 

We have repeatedly held the availability of appellate review for a petitioner’s objections 

following the entry of final judgment precludes resort to mandamus or prohibition as a 

means of raising premature, piecemeal challenges to ongoing trial proceedings. See, e.g., 

United States v. Copar Pumice Co., 714 F.3d 1197, 1210 (10th Cir. 2013) (denying 

petition for mandamus); Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 90 F.3d 433, 437 (10th Cir. 

1996) (denying petition for mandamus or prohibition); United States v. Carrigan, 

778 F.2d 1454, 1467 (10th Cir. 1985) (denying petition for mandamus, following Allied 

Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per curiam)). That is the situation 

here. The objections raised in the petition may be reviewed if and when Ms. Hooks 

appeals from the entry of final judgment concluding the proceedings in district court (or 

earlier if she were to successfully avail herself of the procedure for certification of 

interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). 

The petition is denied. Ms. Hook’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-1053 Document: 01019577279 Date Filed: 02/25/2016 Page: 2