Case Name: Jamie N. MOYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLERK, DeKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-03-09
Citations: 474 F.2d 1275
Docket Number: No. 72-3161
Parties: Jamie N. MOYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLERK, DeKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 474
Pages: 1275–1276

Head Matter:
Jamie N. MOYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLERK, DeKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 72-3161
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 1973.
William R. Gignilliat, III, Atlanta, Ga. (Court Appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Robert E. Mozley, Decatur, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before BELL, GODBOLD and IN-GRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jamie N. Moye, a prisoner of the State of Georgia, filed a pro se petition in the Northern District of Georgia requesting the court to compel the clerk of the DeKalb County Superior Coprt to comply with his request for production of the transcript and other documents relating to his state conviction. He. alleged a need for them as a basic tool necessary for the preparation of his state appeal process.
The district court, construing the request as a petition for a writ of mandamus, summarily dismissed it for failure to exhaust state remedies.
On appeal Moye alleges that he made numerous motions to the state court seeking production but has received no ruling thereon. The respondent herein has failed to file a brief.
Although the writ of mandamus was abolished by Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b), federal courts may issue all writs neces sary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law, 28 U.S. C. § 1651. But a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance oí their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F.2d 383 (5th Cir., 1971); Haggard v. Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384 (6th Cir., 1970).
Since the present request sought only mandamus relief, it was properly denied.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.