In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 01-2926

In re: John Campbell,

Petitioner.

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Submitted July 25, 2001--Decided September 5, 2001

 Before Bauer, Posner, and Coffey, Circuit

Judges.

 Posner, Circuit Judge. John Campbell has

filed with this court a petition for a

writ of mandamus that would order an

Illinois state trial court to give him

access to certain trial transcripts. He

claims that earlier this year, in

preparation for filing a state

postconviction petition, he asked the

court to provide him, at his expense,

with copies of transcripts of guilty-plea

and sentencing hearings relating to four

previous convictions. The court denied

his motion on the ground that it had

already provided the transcripts to him.

In a letter responding to this ruling, he

acknowledged that he had transcripts for

one of the cases but said he didn’t have

them for the other three.

 After several months had gone by with no

response to his letter, he lodged a

petition for mandamus with the Illinois

Appellate Court, urging that court to

invoke the federal All Writs Act, 28

U.S.C. sec. 1651(a), and order the trial

court to provide the requested

transcripts. A member of the court’s

staff returned the petition to him

unfiled, explaining that "the Illinois

Appellate Court does not have

jurisdiction over such matters." Campbell

then filed his petition with us. 

 The All Writs Act authorizes federal

courts to "issue all writs necessary or

appropriate in aid of their respective

jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages

and principles of law," 28 U.S.C. sec.

1651(a); Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S.

529, 534 (1999), including writs of
mandamus, In re Loudermilch, 158 F.3d

1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam);

Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior

Court, 474 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973) (per

curiam), although these courts have no

general power to issue such writs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 81(b). The Act does not

enlarge our jurisdiction. Clinton v.

Goldsmith, supra, 526 U.S. at 535; United

States v. Tablie, 166 F.3d 505 (2d Cir.

1999) (per curiam). We can issue mandamus

against a state judicial officer, In re

Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 277

(3d Cir. 1981)--until superseded by the

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum,

28 U.S.C. sec. 2241(c)(5); Pennsylvania

Bureau of Correction v. United States

Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34, 42-43

(1985); United States v. Garrard, 83 F.3d

889, 893 (7th Cir. 1996), mandamus was

commonly used to order state prison

wardens to permit inmates to attend

federal habeas corpus hearings, e.g.,

Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266 (1948).

But we cannot, as a general rule anyway

(the significance of this qualification

will become clear momentarily), use our

power to control or interfere with state

court litigation, thus exceeding our

jurisdiction. White v. Ward, 145 F.3d

1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Demos

v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d

1160 (9th Cir. 1991); Davis v. Lansing,

851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Moye v.

Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court,

supra, 474 F.2d at 1276; Haggard v.

Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384 (6th Cir. 1970).

 Cases such as FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384

U.S. 597, 603 (1966), and Lindstrom v.

Graber, 203 F.3d 470, 475 (7th Cir.

2000), make clear that the federal

court’s jurisdiction in aid of which the

writ of mandamus is sought need not yet

have attached or been perfected; it can

be potential, as when the writ is sought

from the appellate court in order to

prevent someone from blocking the

petitioner from filing a notice of

appeal. Just as the filing of a notice of

appeal is a prerequisite to a federal

appeals court’s jurisdiction of an

appeal, so the exhaustion of state

remedies, including postconviction

remedies, is a prerequisite to seeking

federal habeas corpus. So one can imagine

a case, though it is not this case, in

which mandamus against a state court

might be warranted in order to prevent

that court from blocking the federal
courts from exercising their habeas

corpus jurisdiction. Even then, the

proper remedy would not be to order the

state court to act; it would be to deem

the petitioner’s state remedies

exhausted, White v. Ward, supra, thus

clearing away the obstacle to our

exercising jurisdiction over his case.

Perhaps, though, in some cases not yet

imagined, the federal court action could

not proceed without some action by a

state court and maybe in such a case the

rule we have stated would yield to the

urgencies of the moment--as we suggested

by the term "as a general rule." But

nothing of that sort is argued here.

 We note in closing, for Campbell’s

guidance (since he is unrepresented),

that he can ask the Illinois Appellate

Court to issue under the authority of

Illinois state law a writ of mandamus

directing the state trial court in which

he seeks to file a postconviction

proceeding to perform the purely

"ministerial" duty--a duty the exercise

of which does not involve judgment or

discretion--of furnishing him with copies

of transcripts in the court’s possession

for which he is willing to pay. 705 ILCS

25/11; People ex rel. Baker v. Cowlin,

607 N.E.2d 1251, 1252 (Ill. 1992).

(Compare, for the case in which the

inmate wants a free transcript, Ill. S.

Ct. R. 471, 607(b).) The staff of the

Illinois Appellate Court probably

returned Campbell’s petition for mandamus

without judicial consideration only

because the petition invoked 28 U.S.C.

sec. 1651(a), a federal statute concerned

solely with litigation in federal courts,

instead of its state counterpart.

Petition for Writ of

Mandamus Denied.