UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IN RE ALEXANDER L. DRISKILL ) Misc Dkt No. 2019–03

Airman (E-2) )

U.S. Air Force )

Petitioner )

) ORDER

)

)

)

) Panel 1

On 25 June 2019, Petitioner filed a petition requesting we issue a writ of 

mandamus and a motion requesting a stay of his ongoing general court-martial. Petitioner also filed a motion to attach documents in support of his petition, including the charge sheets, motions, and the rulings of the military 

judge.

On 25 June 2019, the petition was docketed by this court and titled In re 

Driskill. See JT. R. APP. PROC. R. 19(b)(3). On 27 June 2019, this court denied 

the request for a stay.

Petitioner was charged, inter alia, with knowingly and wrongfully possessing obscene cartoons in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934. Petitioner asserts the military judge erred in not dismissing that offense because of an alleged violation of the Fifth Amendment1

prohibition against double jeopardy. Petitioner requested we issue a writ of 

mandamus (1) setting aside the military judge’s denial of Petitioner’s motion 

to dismiss the offense on the grounds of former jeopardy and (2) ordering the 

offense dismissed with prejudice.

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), grants this court authority to issue 

extraordinary writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction. See Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235, 246 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (quoting Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 537 (1999)). “However, the Act does not enlarge our jurisdiction, and the writ must be in aid of our existing statutory jurisdiction.” 

Chapman v. United States, 75 M.J. 598, 600 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (citing 

Goldsmith, 526 U.S. at 534–35). The writ requested in this case is a writ of 

mandamus; that is, an order issued by a superior court compelling an inferior 

court to “perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.” Ponder v. 

 

1 U.S. CONST. amend. V. 
In re Driskill, Misc. Dkt. No. 2019–03

2

Stone, 54 M.J. 613, 616 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (citation omitted). The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to “confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise 

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

its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). 

It is a drastic remedy to be used sparingly. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 

95 (1967). 

We consider the petition in aid of our jurisdiction under the All Writs Act. 

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also Loving 62 M.J. at 246 (citation omitted). We also 

grant Petitioner’s motion to attach documents.

To justify reversal of a military judge’s decision, it “must amount to more 

than even gross error; it must amount to a judicial usurpation of power. . . or 

be characteristic of an erroneous practice which is likely to recur.” United 

States v. Labella, 15 M.J. 228, 229 (C.M.A. 1983) (per curiam) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). The petitioner must demonstrate that 

usurpation occurred and that he has a “clear and indisputable right” to the 

requested relief. Ponder, 54 M.J. at 616 (citations omitted). If alternative remedies exist, including those within the normal course of appellate review, a writ 

is inappropriate. See Goldsmith, 526 U.S. at 537.

The Supreme Court has held that three conditions must be met before a 

court provides extraordinary relief: (1) the party seeking the relief must show 

the “right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable;” (2) the party seeking the writ must have “no other adequate means to attain the relief”; and (3) 

“even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the 

exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under 

the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81

(2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

After considering Petitioners writ and attached documents, we conclude 

the petition does not warrant the “drastic and extraordinary remedy” of a writ 

of mandamus. See EV v. United States, 75 M.J. 331, 332 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (citation omitted). We find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the relief of a writ of mandamus, and a writ of mandamus is 

not appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381; Morgan 

v. Mahoney, 50 M.J. 633, 634 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1999).
In re Driskill, Misc. Dkt. No. 2019–03

3

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 2nd day of July, 2019, 

ORDERED:

The Motion to Attach Documents dated 25 June 2019 is hereby 

GRANTED.

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus dated 25 June 2019 is hereby DENIED.

FOR THE COURT

JULIE L. ADAMS

Deputy Clerk of the Court