Opinion ID: 471749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review by Mandamus

Text: 10 Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be afforded only in exceptional circumstances. 26 The Supreme Court has carefully circumscribed issuance of the writ, recognizing that it has traditionally been used in the federal courts only '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.'  27 As the Court has explained, only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial 'usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy, 28 and the party seeking the writ must demonstrate that his right to it is clear and indisputable. 29 11 The Commission asserts that the District Court usurped judicial power by exercising jurisdiction over Pearson's case. It argues that the District Court misconstrued Supreme Court precedent and decisions of this court in ruling that habeas corpus is not Pearson's exclusive remedy and in considering the Commission as Pearson's custodian for purposes of a habeas corpus challenge to the Commission's guidelines. 30 12 Whether Pearson's thesis launches an attack on the fact or duration of confinement, which under Preiser is cognizable only in a habeas corpus proceeding, 31 is not nearly as clear as the Commission would have us believe. Indeed, the District Court relied on a post-Preiser decision of this court strongly supporting the conclusion that it had jurisdiction. 32 And even if we were to conclude that the District Court simply erred in entertaining Pearson's suit, it would not follow that mandamus lies. 33 The District Court had jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction 34 and mandamus may not substitute for an appeal. 35 If lack of jurisdiction is not clear, but merely doubtful, the writ should be denied. 36 13 We thus have serious misgivings about the propriety of the Commission's petition for mandamus insofar as it seeks to set for naught the District Court's retention of Pearson's prayer for declaratory and injunctive relief. We need not, however, pursue the question any further. We are satisfied that there is jurisdiction to order relief of that nature, 37 though not Pearson's release from confinement, 38 and the suitability of mandamus to test the ruling on the Commission's motion to transfer is clear. 39