In Re Theophilus Badfoot, 948 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 948 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991) Oct. 29, 1991

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.



Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file in forma pauperis be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition be denied. "A petitioner for mandamus must ... demonstrate that his 'right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable....' " In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). "A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary circumstances" and "federal courts have used the writ '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.' " Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943)). In addition, a writ of mandamus will not issue where an adequate alternative remedy exists. See In re GTE Service Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1026-27 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the relief he seeks justifies issuance of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

The Clerk is directed to enter the petition for a writ of mandamus on the court's general docket.