Opinion ID: 655302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirements for Mandamus

Text: 16 Mandamus is authorized by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which provides: 17 The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. 18 Use of the writ is limited to extraordinary cases because of the undesirability of making a district court judge a litigant, and the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate litigation. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1822, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). The traditional use of the writ ... has been 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. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943). Thus, a writ is not available unless the district court has committed a  'clear abuse of discretion'  or engaged in conduct amounting to 'usurpation of [the judicial] power.'  Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309, 109 S.Ct. at 1822 (quoting respectively Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) and DeBeers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 217, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945)). 19 The Supreme Court imposes two other requirements before the writ may issue. First, petitioners must show that they lack adequate alternative means to obtain the relief they seek. Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309, 109 S.Ct. at 1822. Second, petitioners must carry 'the burden of showing that [their] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. '  Id. (quoting Bankers Life, 346 U.S. at 384, 74 S.Ct. at 148 (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582, 19 S.Ct. 286, 287, 43 L.Ed. 559 (1899))). We must determine whether these requirement are satisfied here. 4 20 Travelers contends that it has a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of the writ because the district court erroneously concluded that the New Jersey statutes were not preempted by ERISA. To address this contention, we turn to an examination of the merits of the ERISA preemption issue.