P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60772 C onfer enc e Cal endar
RO BER T W ALL Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. BR U CE PEA RSO N , W ar de n; FED ER AL BU RE AU O F PR I SO N S D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 234

B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n dJ O L LYa n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R o b e r tW a ll , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r # 1 3 9 6 5 -0 5 2 , is a p p e a li n gth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d en i a l of h i s p eti ti on for m a n d a m u s a n dh i s req u est for rel i ef un d er th e A l lW ri ts A ct , 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 65 1. H e a r gue s t hatt he w ar de n s us pe nde d t he de l ive r y of l egaland per so nalm ai lbe c ause of an i nci denti n anot herfac il i t y and t hati tm ay prej udi c e hi s abi l i ty to p rosecut e hi s pendi ng pr oc ee di ng f i l ed pur suantt o 2 8 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60772

2 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5
. W a ll c o n t e n d s t h a t h e h a s n o o th e ra d e q u a te re m e d yto o b ta in
access t o t h e court s. A “ w r i to f

m and am us i s a n o r de rdir e c t i ng a pub l i co f f i c i alo rpub l i cb o dy to p erform a d u ty ex a ctedbyl a w . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. D enson , 603 F. 2d 1143, 1146 (5th C i r. 19 7 9 ). It “i s a n ex trao rd i n a ryrem ed y for ex trao rd i n a rycau ses . ” I n re Cor r uga t e d Cont ai ne rAnt i t r us tLi t ig. v . Me ad Co r p. , 6 1 4 F
. 2 d95 8 , 96 1 -62 ( 5 th Ci r . 198 0) (i n t e r nalc i t at i o ns a nd q uo t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. To o bt ai n t he w r i t , t he pe t i t i o ne rm us ts ho w “t hatno o t he ra de qua t e m e ans e xi s tt o a t t ai n t he
r e que s t e d r e l i e f

an d t h at h i s r i ghtt o t he i s s uanc e o f t he w r i ti s ‘ c l e ara nd i n d i sp u tab l e.’” In reWill y , 8 3 1 F .2d 5 4 5 , 5 4 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (cita tion s o m itted ). T h e is s u a n c e o f th e w r i tis w ith in th e co u r t’s d is c r e tio n . D enson , 603 F. 2d at 1146. If W al lcan sh ow t h at th e suspen si on of t h e m ai l del ivery h as prej u di ced hi s r i ght s i n al e ga lpr o c e s s , hi s app ro pr i at e r e m e dyi s t o f i l e ac o m pl ai nt p u r s u a n t t o 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a lle g in gth e d e n ia l o f a c c e s s to th e co u r ts
. S ee R ich a rd so n v. McD o n n ell , 841 F. 2d 120, 122 ( 5 th C i r. 1988)
. Thu s, he has an adequat e c ivi lr em edy. In s o fa ra s W a ll s e e k s re lie f u n d e rth e A ll W r its A c t, it is n o t a v a ila b le
u n l ess th e ap p l i ca n t ca n sh ow th a t h e ha s n o othe r a d eq u a te rem ed y. In re Mon t es , 677 F. 2d 415, 416 ( 5t h C i r . 1982)
. A s pre vi ous l y di sc uss ed, W al lhas an a d e q u a te re m e d yto o b ta inre li e f. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se it s di scr et i on i n den yi n g t h e p e ti t i on f or m andam us o rW al l ’ s r eques tf orr el i ef

und er t he A l lW r i t s A c t , § 1651. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.