Opinion ID: 782573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The law of mandamus

Text: 47 [T]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.... Only exceptional circumstances, amounting to a judicial usurpation of power, will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34-35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 190, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); see also In re Temple, 851 F.2d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.1988) (mandamus is to be exercised only in drastic situations, when no other adequate means are available to remedy a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion); In re Evans, 524 F.2d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir.1975) ([M]andamus lies only to confine a lower court to its jurisdiction or to compel it to perform ministerial functions over which it has no discretion.). 48 The party seeking mandamus has the burden of demonstrating that its right to issuance of the writ is `clear and indisputable.' Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96, 88 S.Ct. 269, 274, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967) ( quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)); In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 608 (5th Cir.1992) ( quoting Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1822, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989)). Significantly, a party is not entitled to mandamus merely because it shows evidence that, on appeal, would warrant reversal of the district court. In re Bushkin Assoc., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 245 (1st Cir. 1989). 49 As noted above, the trilogy of Supreme Court cases — Firestone, Flanagan and Koller — held that disqualification orders are not immediately appealable, but left open the possible availability of mandamus. Following these Supreme Court cases, divergent authority has evolved. As the Seventh Circuit noted in In re Sandahl, 980 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir.1992), some circuits have seemed to permit mandamus to slide into mere right to relief, id. at 1121 (emphasis in original), rather than insisting upon a clear right to relief (`clear and indisputable,' as the cases sometimes say). Id. Sandahl cited as examples of this line of cases the Fifth Circuit's decision in American Airlines, supra, and Christensen v. United States Dist. Court, 844 F.2d 694 (9th Cir.1988). The Seventh Circuit noted that other circuits had resisted this temptation, citing Bushkin, supra; In re Mechem, 880 F.2d 872 (6th Cir.1989); and In re American Cable Publications, Inc., 768 F.2d 1194 (10th Cir.1985). The Seventh Circuit joined the resisters in avoiding the collapse of mandamus into an ordinary appeal. It held that mandamus in a disqualification case would lie only upon a showing that the district court order was patently erroneous and a showing of a clear right to relief, or a demonstrable injustice. 980 F.2d at 1121. See In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 614 F.2d 958, 962 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that mandamus will not issue to correct a duty that is to any degree debatable)( citing United States v. Denson, 603 F.2d 1143, 1147 n. 2 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc)). 50 We agree with the Seventh Circuit. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring demonstrable injustice or irreparable injury. Consequently, following the lead of Sandahl, mandamus should ordinarily lie to remedy an attorney disqualification order only if the district court order is patently erroneous and the petitioners have shown a clear and undisputable right to relief.