Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-06033/USCOURTS-ca10-20-06033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antone Lamandingo Knox
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: ANTONE LAMANDINGO KNOX, 

 Petitioner.

No. 20-6033

(D.C. No. 5:19-CV-01077-D)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Antone Lamandingo Knox, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to take action on several 

pending issues in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. On April 1, 2020, the district 

court entered an order that resolved two of the pending issues—it ruled on Mr. Knox’s 

motions for contempt and ordered prison officials to comply with Mr. Knox’s request to 

transfer funds from his account to the court to pay his filing fee. 

Mr. Knox also sought an order compelling the district court to rule on whether to 

grant or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) in a related appeal. The district court 

has not yet ruled on the COA issue, but we conclude that its failure to do so at this point 

in the proceedings is not an extraordinary circumstance worthy of the drastic remedy of a 

writ of mandamus. See In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 

2009) (explaining that “a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only 

in extraordinary circumstances” and “is used only to confine an inferior court to a lawful 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 13, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-6033 Document: 010110332459 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 1
2

exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its 

duty to do” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we deny Mr. Knox’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant his 

motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. He remains obligated 

to pay the filing fee for this action.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-6033 Document: 010110332459 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 2