Source: http://fathersunite.org/New/writ_of_mandamus__an_order_to_compel.htm
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 07:15:14
Document Index: 755605057

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1651', '§ 99', '§ 1651', '§ 1361', 'art 1', 'art 2', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 106']

Writ of Mandamus - An Order to C
Writ of Mandamus - An Order to Compel an Order man·da·mus (măn-dā'məs)
n. A writ issued by a superior court ordering a public official or body or a lower court to perform a specified duty.
tr.v.,
-mused, -mus·ing,
-mus·es. To serve or compel with such a writ.
[Latin, We comand.] A
writ or order that is issued from a court of superior
jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, municipal corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.
A writ or order of mandamus is an extraordinary court order because it is made without the benefit of full judicial process, or before a case has concluded. It may be issued by a court at any time that it is appropriate, but it is usually issued in a case that has already begun.
Generally, the decisions of a lower-court made in the course of a continuing case will not be reviewed by higher
courts until there is a final
judgment in the case. On the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 provides that
appellate review of lower-court decisions should be postponed until after a final judgment has been made in the lower court. A writ of mandamus offers one exception to this rule. If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a
petition for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.
The writ of mandamus was first used by English courts in the early seventeenth century. It migrated to the courts in the American colonies, and the law on it has remained largely the same ever since. The remedy of mandamus is made available through court opinions, statutes, and court rules on both the federal and state levels. On the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a) provides that courts "may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
The Supreme Court set forth some guidelines on writs of mandamus in Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976). In Kerr, the Court upheld the denial of a writ of mandamus sought by prison officials to prevent the district court from compelling them to turn over personnel and inmate files to seven prisoners who had sued the prison over alleged constitutional violations. The officials argued that turning over the records would compromise prison communications and confidentiality.
The Supreme Court observed in Kerr that the writ of mandamus was traditionally used by
federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, or to compel an
inferior court to exercise its authority when it had a duty to do so. The Court also noted that mandamus is available only in exceptional cases because it is so disruptive of the judicial process, creating disorder and delay in the trial. The writ would have been appropriate, opined the Court, if the trial court had wrongly decided an issue, if failure to reverse that decision would irreparably injure a party, and if there was no other method for relief. Because the prison officials could claim a privilege to withhold certain documents, and had the right to have the documents reviewed by a judge prior to release to the opposing party, other remedies existed and the writ was inappropriate.
Although traditionally writs of mandamus are rare, they have been issued in a growing number of situations. They have been issued by federal courts when a trial judge refused to dismiss a case even though it lacked jurisdiction; refused to reassign a case despite a
conflict of interest; stopped a trial for
arbitration or an administrative remedy; denied a party the opportunity to intervene, to file a
cross-claim, or to amend a
pleading; denied a
class action; denied or allowed the consolidation or severance of two trials; refused to permit depositions; or entered an order limiting or denying
The writ of mandamus can also be issued in a mandamus proceeding, independent of any judicial proceeding. Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial or government officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. For example, in Massachusetts, each year the commonwealth's attorney general and each district attorney must make available to the public a report on wiretaps and other interceptions of oral com- munications conducted by law enforcement officers. If the report is not made available, any person may compel its production by filing an
action for mandamus (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 99 [West 1996]). If successful, a court would issue an order directing the attorney general and district attorneys to produce the information. The attorney general and district attorneys have a chance to defend their actions at a hearing on the action. If the parties fail to comply with a mandamus order, they may be held in
contempt of court and fined or jailed.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00215.htm
215 Mandamus Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra.
Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964). Mandamus may be employed to require a lower court to enforce the judgment of an appellate court, or to keep such a court from interposing unauthorized obstructions to the enforcement of the judgment of a higher court. See United States v. District Court, 334 U.S. 258, 263 (1948) (to enforce obedience to court of appeals mandate). Where the right was clear and indisputable, mandamus issued to compel a lower court to release a boat under an assertion of the immunity of a foreign sovereign. Spacil v. Crowe, 489 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1974). It has been utilized to compel the issuance of a bench warrant. Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 248 (1932).
The district courts have no jurisdiction of a suit seeking mandamus against the United States. United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1 (1889); Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939); McCune v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 946 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). 28 U.S.C. § 1361, giving the United States district court jurisdiction of "an action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff," speaks only of compelling an officer or employee. The committee reports accompanying this enactment make clear that the legislation did not create new liabilities or new causes of action against the United States. See S.Rep. No. 1992, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 2; H.Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 1. Courts have no authority to grant relief in the nature of mandamus if the plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy aside from mandamus, such as a suit for monetary judgment or the opportunity to raise the legal issues involved in a suit brought by the government. United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 544 (1937); Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935); Whittier v. Emmet,
281 F.2d 24, 28-29 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Lovallo v. Froehlke, 468 F.2d 340 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 918 (1973). Mandamus is not available, if a statutory method of review is authorized. Wellens v. Dillon, 302 F.2d 442 (9th Cir.), app. dism., 371 U.S. 90 (1962).
Mandamus does not supersede other remedies; it only comes into play when there is a want of such remedies.
See Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 941 (1970). The power of a district court to compel official action by mandatory order is limited to the enforcement of nondiscretionary, plainly defined, and purely ministerial duties. See Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. (1 Pet.) 496, 514-17 (1840); Work v. Rives, 267 U.S. 175, 177 (1925); Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930). An official action is not ministerial unless "the duty in a particular situation is so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command." Wilbur v. United States, supra; See United States ex rel. McLennan v.
Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931); ICC v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 287 U.S. 178, 204 (1932); United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, supra; Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967); Donnelly v.
Parker, 486 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1973). "But where there is discretion . . . even though its conclusion be disputable, it is impregnable to mandamus." United States ex rel. Alaska Smokeless Coal Co. v. Lane, 250 U.S. 549, 555 (1919). November 1998 Civil Resource Manual 215 US Attorneys > USAM > Title 4 > Civil Resource Manual
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00000.htm
United States Attorney General Opinion, January 14, 1879
United States Attorney General Opinion, February 19, 1902
United States Attorney General Opinion, October 2, 1934
United States Attorney General Opinion, January 30, 1879
United States Attorney General Opinion, December 14, 1868
United States Attorney General Opinion, May 8, 1929 United States Attorney General Opinion, July 11, 1894 United States Attorney General Opinion, January 17, 1900 United States Attorney General Opinion, October 24, 1933
United States Attorney General Opinion, August 26, 1881
United States Attorney General Opinion, August 7, 1911
United States Attorney General Opinion, June 3, 1919 United States Attorney General Opinion, November 27, 1895
United States Attorney General Opinion, March 7, 1935 Black Markets GHB FDCA Violations Sample Charges for GHB Felony Cases GHB Probation Letter Human Growth Hormone/Steroids Statutory Overview FDCA Buy-Bust Prosecutions Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Generally Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Sample Indictment Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Sample Indictment Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Sample Jury Instructions Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Sample Jury Instructions Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Trial Memorandum -- Introduction and Background Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Trial Memorandum -- Legal Issues Animal Drug Prosecutions -- Sample Memorandum re Expert Drug Testimony Sample Memorandum re applying the "intent to defraud FDA" felony theory to an animal drug prosecutions Immunity of the United States from Suit, Absent Express Consent Consent to be Sued is Strictly Construed Government Agencies are not Subject to Suit, Absent Statutory Waiver of Immunity Immunity of Government Officers Sued as Individuals for Official Acts Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Standing to Sue Effect of Declaratory Judgment Act and Administrative Procedure Act Indispensable Party Venue Venue -- Government as Plaintiff Venue -- United States as Defendant Venue -- Government Officers and Agencies as Defendants Change of Venue Service of Process Service on Government Officers in Official Capacity, Agencies Removal Redelegation By Civil Division of Authority to Compromise Civil Claims Court of Federal Claims Litigation The Bankruptcy "Players" -- Outline [reserved] [reserved] [reserved] [reserved] [reserved] Bankruptcy and the Government as Regulator -- Part I Bankruptcy and the Government as Regulator -- Part II Bankruptcy and the Government as Regulator -- Part III
Avoidance Powers -- Strong-Arm Clause, Fraudulent Conveyances Avoidance Powers -- Preferences, Statutory Liens, Postposition Transactions, Preferential Offsets, Limitations Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy -- Introduction, Threshold Issues Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy -- Assumption and Rejection Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy -- Government and Special Contracts Claims in Bankruptcy Creditor's Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedings -- The Debtor-Creditor Relationship In Bankruptcy Creditor's Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedings -- The Debtor-Creditor Relationship In Bankruptcy -- Allowance and Payment of Claims Setoff and Recoupment in Bankruptcy -- Setoff Setoff and Recoupment in Bankruptcy -- Setoff (cont'd)
Setoff and Recoupment in Bankruptcy -- Recoupment The Government as Secured Creditor Appellate Procedures in Bankruptcy The Contract Disputes Act Protest of Contract Awards Principles of Contract Interpretation Ambiguities Validity and Construction of Liquidated Damages Provisions Claims of Mistakes in Bids Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Claims Quasi-Contractual Claims Conversion of Property Mortgaged to the Government Decedent's Estate Devises and Bequests to the Government VA Escheat Claims VA Vesting Claims Grants -- Breach of Conditions Guaranty Agreements Medicare Overpayment Cases Sureties VA Loan Claims Warranties Warranty of Prior Endorsements on Checks Transfer Restrictions and Remedies Under the Financial Privacy Act [reserved] [reserved] Social Security Act Review Procedures Types of Judgments Authorized Under the Social Security Act Priority of Liens The "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" of Appeals in Bankruptcy Proceedings -- Generally The "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" of Appeals in Bankruptcy Proceedings -- Standard of Review, Mootness, etc. "Materiality" in FDCA prosecutions
Statutes Assigned to the Office of Consumer Litigation in 28 C.F.R. 0.45(j) Office of Consumer Litigation Sample Memorandum -- Intent to Defraud Or Mislead Elements of a Misdemeanor Offense Under the FDCA Sample Jury Instructions for a Misdemeanor Food Adulteration Case Sample Jury Instruction -- Intent to Defraud or Mislead Sample Government's Motion in Limine re Knowledge and Intent Model Subpoena and Practice Tips for an FDCA Investigation Issues Regarding Medical Devices and Adulteration Or Misbranding Claims Medical Device Law -- An Overview Sample Medical Device Indictment Sample Medical Device Indictment The Prescription Drug Marketing Act Sample Indictment -- Prescription Drug Marketing Act Sample Information -- Prescription Drug Marketing Act Sample Information -- Prescription Drug Marketing Act
-- Institutional Diversion
Sample Information -- Prescription Drug Marketing Act
-- Statement of Origin
Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Conspiracy Count Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Mail and Wire Fraud Counts Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Miscellaneous Counts Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Conspiracy Count Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Miscellaneous Counts Sample Information -- Introduction of Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce Sample Jury Instructions -- Food Fraud -- Pattern Instructions Sample Jury Instructions -- Food Fraud -- Additional Instructions Sample Brief -- Evidence of Scientific Testing in Food Fraud Cases Response to Motion to Strike Surplusage Sample Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Surplusage Sample United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Surplusage From Indictment Sample Memorandum re Surplusage Sample Memorandum re Multiplicity Sample Memorandum re Multiplicity Response to Motions Concerning Multiplicity and Surplusage Sample Trial Brief Re Elements of Violations of the FDCA Contained in 21 U.S.C. 331(A) and 331(K) Sample Trial Brief re Admissibility of Summaries, Foreign Records, Plea Agreements, Scientific Evidence, and Chain of Custody Opposition to Defense Motions re Due Process, Vagueness, "Van Liew", and "Minarik" Problems Analysis of Minarik Sample Memorandum Supporting Motion Precluding Evidence of Selective Prosecution Sample Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence or Argument on Selective and/or Vindictive Prosecution Sample Memorandum re Willfulness and Good Faith Sample Sentencing memorandum -- abuse of trust enhancement Sample Analysis Estimating Loss Based on Savings to Defendants Discussion of Significant Factors That Affect Sentencing in FDCA Cases Appellate Brief Regarding Loss Appellate Brief Regarding Loss (continued) Points to Remember When Considering Seizure and Condemnation Actions Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Brief Defending a Seizure Against an Attack Based on the Fourth Amendment Reply Brief Defending a Seizure Against an Attack Based on the Fourth Amendment Odometer Fraud Prosecutions -- Agencies, Contacts and Resources Recodification of the Odometer Fraud Statutes Repealed Odometer Fraud Statutes Commonly Charged Odometer Tampering Offenses Subpoenas to Targets for Forensic Evidence Appeal Brief -- Required Records Sample Target Letter -- Required Records Sample Odometer Fraud Indictment Reflecting 1994 Recodification Sample Odometer Fraud Indictment That Also Charges Mail Fraud and ITSP Sample Odometer Fraud Indictment -- Multidefendant, ITSP, and False Declarations to a Grand Jury Sample Trial Memorandum -- Odometer Fraud Sample Trial Memorandum -- Odometer Fraud Sample Trial Memorandum -- Odometer Fraud Sample Odometer Fraud Jury Instructions Sample Response to Defense Motion re Mailing Sample Omnibus Response in a Multi-defendant Odometer Fraud Prosecution Proposed findings that can be used to support a complex case finding and exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act Sample Response To Motions To Dismiss Due To Alleged Multiplicity Restitution for Consumers Sample Government Application for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Records for Restitution Purposes Sample Disclosure Order Evaluating the "Amount of Loss" for Sentencing in Odometer Fraud Cases Opposition to Defense Motions re Due Process, Vagueness, "Van Liew" and "Minarik" Problems Sentencing Guidelines Calculation [RESERVED] [RESERVED] Eppes Declaration Sample Government's Response to Defendant's Response and Objections to Presentence Report [RESERVED] Response to Objections to Presentence Report Sample Government Alborz Memorandum -- Ninth Circuit Sample Government Alborz Memorandum -- Fifth Circuit Probation Letter for Convictions Where the Count of Conviction Occurred Prior to November 1, 2001 Probation Letter for Convictions Where the Count of Conviction Occurred in Whole or in Part After November 1, 2001 Sample Government's Reply to Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum (part 1) Sample Government's Reply to Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum (part 2) Bankruptcy Jurisdiction of the District Courts Reference of Cases and Proceedings to the Bankruptcy Judges Scope of the Powers and Authority of Bankruptcy Judges
Bankruptcy Jurisdiction -- Personal Jurisdiction Bankruptcy Jurisdiction -- Venue Bankruptcy Jurisdiction -- Appellate Jurisdiction Termination of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Sovereign Immunity -- 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) Sovereign Immunity -- 11 U.S.C. § 106(b) Sovereign Immunity -- 11 U.S.C. § 106(c) Limits of the § 106 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Seminole Tribe and State Sovereign Immunity Bankruptcy Jurisdiction and Sovereign Immunity Statutory Addendum Jury Trials in Civil Cases Laches Limitations Statutes Applicable to Suits Against the Government Offset Recoupment and Setoff Priority for the Payment of Claims Due the Government Counterclaims Against the United States Counterclaim in Suits on Notes and Mortgages Estoppel Choice of Law Interest Recoverable by the Government Interest Recoverable From the Government Declaratory Actions Injunctions Mandamus Reformation Replevin Rescission Specific Performance Attorney's Fees Court Costs Costs Recoverable by the United States Costs Recoverable From the United States Sample Letter -- Judgments and Stipulations Sample Letter -- Back pay Judgments FMS Form 194 -- Judgment Fund Payment Request Monitoring of Payment Agreements by the Department of Veterans Affairs Debt Management Center (DMC) Memorandum from Attorney General -- Coordination of Parallel Criminal, Civil, and Administrative November 2002 Civil Resource Manual