Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08057/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David K. Isham
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

In re: DAVID K. ISHAM, 

 Petitioner. 

No. 15-8057 

(D.C. No. 2:04-MJ-00014-ABJ-1) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 David K. Isham, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a 

motion for leave to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (IFP). He seeks an order 

from this court directing a correction in his criminal background records, which, he 

asserts, misrepresent our order in his 2005 criminal appeal. See United States v. Isham, 

131 F. App’x 641 (10th Cir. 2005). For the reasons explained below, we grant his motion 

for IFP and deny the mandamus petition. 

 Mr. Isham was convicted of charges brought in connection with events that 

occurred in Grand Teton National Park in August 2003. He appealed only his conviction 

for being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 

36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1). The government admitted that the evidence was insufficient to 

support that charge, and we remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss it. 

Isham, 131 F. App’x at 641. The district court promptly entered an order dismissing that 

charge, as directed. See D.C. No. 04-M-014-J, Doc. 16 (D. Wyo. May 18, 2005). The 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 11, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-8057 Document: 01019473771 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 1 
2 

district court ordered Mr. Isham to pay a $25 fine “on the sole remaining count against 

[him] for Unlawfully Possessing a Loaded Firearm in Grand Teton National Park.” Id.

Doc. 18, at 1 (D. Wyo. Sept. 1, 2005). The district court specified that “[a]ll other fines, 

costs, restitutions, terms of imprisonment and probation are remitted.” Id. 

 Mr. Isham argues that our order was not implemented based on a letter, dated 

August 22, 2014, from a potential employer informing him that his criminal history check 

showed charges in August 2003 for “Loaded Firearm[;] DUI[;] Trespass-Federal[; and] 

Possession Controlled Substance.” Pet. for Mand. at 28. He states that he wrote the 

Department of Justice attempting to resolve the discrepancy in his records and that he 

received a written response from an Assistant U.S. Attorney. See id. at 29-34. He is 

dissatisfied, however, because the response stated that he was convicted of possessing a 

loaded firearm in Grand Teton National Park, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(b), and that 

“[i]f any of your ‘records’ continue to reflect a conviction for unlawfully being in control 

of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, they should not.” Pet. for Mand. at 29. He points 

out that “[t]his letter does not state they actually corrected the ‘records.’” Id. at 4. 

 Fairly construed, Mr. Isham’s petition seeks an order to compel a federal officer to 

perform his duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to correct Mr. Isham’s criminal records, 

although his materials do not make clear who controls his “records,” who has a duty to 

correct them, or to whom an order would be directed. See United States ex rel. Girard 

Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 543 (1937) (“Where the right of the petitioner is 

not clear, and the duty of the officer, performance of which is to be commanded, is not 

plainly defined and peremptory, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.”) In any event, 

Appellate Case: 15-8057 Document: 01019473771 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 2 
3 

his petition is filed in the wrong court. Under § 1361, “[t]he district courts shall have 

original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or 

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the 

plaintiff.” 

 The motion for leave to proceed IFP is granted. The petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-8057 Document: 01019473771 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 3