Opinion ID: 161385
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claim for Mandamus for Violation of First Amendment Right of Equal Access

Text: 39 Smith seeks an order of mandamus under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(2) requiring Plati to give Smith equal access to all information given to other members of the press. (See Complaint 19-22.) Smith grounds his claim for mandamus relief on the assertion that there is some sort of protection against arbitrary and even malicious giving of access to some but denial to others. 40 In considering whether to issue a writ of mandamus, Colorado courts have generally applied a three-part test: (1) a plaintiff must have a clear right to the relief sought; (2) the defendant must have a clear duty to perform the act requested; and (3) there must be no other available remedy. See Sherman v. City of Colorado Springs Planning Comm'n, 763 P.2d 292, 295 (Colo. 1988). Mandamus will lie to compel a ministerial act, but it is an inappropriate remedy when the agency or officer has discretion. See Ahern v. Baker, 366 P.2d 366, 369 (Colo. 1961); Menchetti v. Wilson, 597 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979) (C.R.C.P. 106 relief in the nature of mandamus will be granted only in cases where a clear legal duty exists for an administrative officer to perform a ministerial act.). [M]andamus will not lie to enforce duties generally, or to control and regulate a general course of official conduct for a long series of continuous acts to be performed under varying conditions. Ahern, 366 P.2d at 369. For example, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that mandamus under Rule 106 is appropriate to compel an ousted government officer to turn over the books and papers of the office to the newly appointed office-holder. See Kepley v. People ex rel. Everson, 230 P. 804, 805-06 (Colo. 1924). In contrast, the Colorado high court explained that mandamus will not ordinarily be granted to compel police officers to enforce the police or criminal laws generally, such as laws regulating intoxicating liquors. Ahern, 366 P.2d at 369 (citation and alterations omitted). 41 It is clear that under Colorado law mandamus does not lie to compel Plati to treat Smith like all other members of the media. Plati's job requires him to make on-going decisions regarding what University athletic information is made public, given to the press, or kept confidential and every variety of decision in between under constantly changing circumstances. Smith asks this court to control and regulate the general course of Plati's official conduct as Assistant Athletic Director for Media Relations for a long series of continuous acts performed under varying conditions. Mandamus is not appropriate in this case because it would require a court constantly to be looking over Plati's shoulder and assessing whether, for instance, after consulting with the football coach and the athletic director, Plati's decision to permit five media photographers to set up their cameras on the sidelines during a home football game meant Plati had to grant sidelines access to Smith as well. 42 Therefore, while on a different ground than the district court, we affirm the dismissal of this claim. Cf. Sandoval, 29 F.3d at 542 n.6.