Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04185/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Dummar
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

MELVIN DUMMAR,

Petitioner.

No. 07-4185

(D.C. No. 1:06-CV-66-BSJ)

(D. Utah)

ORDER

Filed September 24, 2007

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Melvin Dummar petitions this court for a writ of mandamus or

such other writ as this court deems appropriate under the All Writs Act directing

the district court to grant his Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b) motion to take depositions to

preserve testimony pending appeal. Mr. Dummar filed the Rule 27(b) motion

after the district court entered judgment dismissing his underlying suit for fraud,

unjust enrichment, and state and federal RICO violations. The defendants in the

underlying action opposed the motion, and after hearing argument on the motion,

the district court entered an order on June 22, 2007, denying the Rule 27(b)

motion. Mr. Dummar did not appeal that order. Instead, he filed this original

mandamus proceeding on August 31, 2007.

Appellate Case: 07-4185 Document: 010138271 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Page: 1
-2-

In determining whether to grant mandamus relief, we consider five

nonconclusive factors. Pacificare of Okla., Inc. v. Burrage, 59 F.3d 151, 153

(10th Cir. 1995). The first of those factors is that “the party seeking the writ has

no other adequate means to secure the relief desired.” Id. (quotation marks

omitted). In other words, “mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal,” Weston v.

Mann (In re Weston), 18 F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir. 1994).

The district court’s order denying Mr. Dummar’s Rule 27(b) motion was a

final, appealable order. See Lombard’s, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974,

975 (11th Cir. 1985) (appeal from denial of motion); Shore v. Acands, Inc.,

644 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir. 1981) (appeal from grant of motion); Crateo, Inc. v.

Intermark, Inc., 536 F.2d 862, 870 (9th Cir. 1976) (appeal from denial of motion);

Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909, 911 (3d Cir. 1975) (same). Because Mr. Dummar

could have challenged the district court’s order on appeal, he is not entitled to

mandamus relief.

We have on occasion construed a mandamus petition as a notice of appeal. 

See, e.g., United States v. Gundersen, 978 F.2d 580, 583-84 (10th Cir. 1992). 

Even if we were inclined to do so here, however, it could not serve as a timely

notice of appeal because Mr. Dummar filed his mandamus petition more than two

months after the district court entered its order denying his motion. See Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1) (providing that notice of appeal in civil case must be filed within

30 days after the order appealed from is entered).

Appellate Case: 07-4185 Document: 010138271 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Page: 2
-3-

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Such Writ the Court Deems

Appropriate Under its All Writs Authority is DENIED. Petitioner’s request for

oral argument is DENIED as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-4185 Document: 010138271 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Page: 3