Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01113/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun Rosiere
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: SHAUN ROSIERE, 

 Petitioner.

No. 16-1113

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00143-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Petitioner Shaun Rosiere requested records from several government agencies 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He did not receive the documents 

requested, so he filed a complaint against the United States, asserting FOIA violations 

and seeking relief under 5 U.S.C. § 552. After issuing a show-cause order, the district 

court dismissed the lawsuit as duplicative because Mr. Rosiere asserted nearly identical 

claims in pending cases in the Districts of Nevada and New Jersey. Proceeding pro se, 

Mr. Rosiere asks us to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to allow 

him “his day in court” to force the government agencies to comply with FOIA and 

provide an individualized tracking number and other information regarding the status of 

his requests. Pl. Rosiere’s Motion of Mandamus to the U.S. Appeals Court for the 

10th Circuit at 7 (Apr. 4, 2016). We deny his petition because he has not satisfied the 

applicable standard.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 20, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1113 Document: 01019605859 Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Page: 1 
2

Mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, which is to be used “only in extraordinary 

situations.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) (per curiam). 

“[W]e will grant a writ only when the district court has acted wholly without jurisdiction 

or so clearly abused its discretion as to constitute usurpation of power.” In re Cooper 

Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus are strict: (1) the 

petitioner “must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; (2) “the 

petitioner must demonstrate that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable”; and 

(3) “the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is 

appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Mr. Rosiere’s petition does not meet this high standard for mandamus relief. As a 

threshold matter, he has an adequate alternative means to obtain relief through a direct 

appeal. See Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 

380-81 (2004) (stating that a writ cannot “be used as a substitute for the regular appeals 

process”). If Mr. Rosiere decides to file a direct appeal, he must file his notice of appeal 

with the district court within 60 days of the court’s March 16, 2016, order. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant the motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1113 Document: 01019605859 Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Page: 2