N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : M IC HAEL LAC EY; JAM ES LAR KIN; SC OTT SPEAR ; JOHN B R UNST; ANDR

EW PADILLA; JOYE VAUGHT,

______________________________ M IC HAEL LAC EY; JAM ES LAR KIN; SC OTT SPEAR ; JOHN B R UNST; ANDREW

PADILLA; JOYE VAUGHT, Pe t i tione rs, v. UNITED STATES DISTRIC T C OUR T FOR THE DISTRIC T OF AR IZONA, PHOENIX, R e sponde nt, UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

R e a l Party in Inte re st. No. 20-73408 D.C . No. 2:18-c r-00422-SM B M EM O R ANDUM *

Pe tition for W

rit of M anda

m us 

# FIL ED APR 5 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M arc h 3, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ENGLAND, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . Pe titione rs se e k

a writ of m anda

m us c om pe lling TheHonora

ble Susa n M . B rnovic h to re c use he rse lf from

the c rim ina l prose c ution of pe rsons a s soc iate d with a de func t we b s ite the gove rnm e nt a lle ge s wa s use d a s a forum for fa c ilita

ting prostitution se

rvic e s. The ba sis for re c usa l is thea c tivity and c om m e nts of the judge ’ s spouse , the Ariz ona Attorne y Ge ne ra l (AG). In the ir m otion for re c usa l, Pe titione rs spe c ific a lly re fe re n c e d the following doc um e nts a

nd sta te m e nts a ttribute d to the AG: (1) a Twitte r “ twe e t ” on August 19, 2020, de sc ribing a

we bina r sc he dule d for the following da y ; (2) a bookle t publishe d in Juneof 2018 disc ussing huma n tra ffic king, inc luding via soc ia l m e dia site s; a nd (3) a pre ss re le a se date d August 16, 2017, de sc ribing a le tte r se nt by a c oa lition of Attorne

y s Ge ne ra l urging C ongre ss to a m e nd the C om

m unic ations De c e nc y Ac t to e lim inate im

m unity for we b site s prom oting hum a n tra ffic king, a

nd

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M orrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2the re fe re nc e d le tte r. Pe titione rs a lso m e ntione d the AG’ s “ pa rtne rship” with anti-tra ffic king orga

niz a t ions. The distric t c ourt found tha t the se m atte rs did not wa rran t re c usa l. The distric t c o urt de e m e d the m otion untime ly be c a use it wa s file d

m ore tha n 17 m onths a fte r she wa s a s signe d to the c a se and a fte r a dve rse rulings. M ore ove r, the ide n tity of the judge ’ s spouse , a s we l l a s the AG’ s sta te m e nts, ha d long be e n m a tte rs of public re c ord.

“ M anda m us is a dra stic and e xtra ordina

ry re m e dy re se rve d only

for re a lly e xtra ordina

ry c a use s .” In reGric e , 974 F.3d 950, 954 (9th C ir. 2020) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Pe titione rs m ust show tha

t the ir right to m anda

m us is

“ c l e ar and indisputa

ble ” and tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d “ c le ar e rror a s a m a tte r of la

w.” Id. As guida n c e in e va luating a

pe tition for issua

nc e of a writ of m a

n dam us, we c onside r five fa c tors: whe the r (1) Pe t itione rs ha ve “ no othe r a de quate m e a ns, suc h a s a dire c t a

ppe a l, to a

tta in the re lie f [the y ] de s ire [] ” ; (2) Pe t itione rs “ will be dam a ge d or pre

judic e d in a

wa y not c orre c ta

ble on a ppe a l ” ; (3) the “ distric t c ourt’ s orde r is c le arly

e rrone ous a s a

m a tte r of la

w” ; (4) the “ orde r is a

n oft-re p e ate d e rror, or m anife sts a

pe rsiste nt disre ga

rd of the fe d e ra l rule s” ; a

n d (5) the “ orde r

3ra ise s ne wan d im porta nt proble m s, or issue s of la w of first im

pre ssion.” Bauman v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt , 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th C ir. 1977) .

“ While a ll the [ Bauman ] fa c tors ne e d not be pre se nt to issue the writ[,] the a bse nc e of fa c tor thre e — c le ar e rror a s a m atte r of la

w— will a lwa y s de fe at a pe tition for m anda

m us.” In re Sw ift Transportation C

o. Inc . , 830 F.3d 913, 916 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita

tion a nd a lte ra tion omitte d). Pe titione rs’ c la im flounde rs on this fa c tor be c a

use the distric t c ourt c om m itte d no c le ar e rror. 1 Se e id. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

1 The distric t c ourt a lso did not a buse its disc re tion in striking the de c la ra tion from

a re tire d fe de ra l c ourt judgewho opine d on the m e rits of re c usa l . Se e K affaga v . Estate

of Ste i nbe c k, 938 F.3d 1006, 1016 n.6 (9th C ir. 2019) (upholding e xc lusion of e xpe rt le ga l opinion). 4