In Re Francis Ferri, et al., Petitioners, 971 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1992)Annotate this Case
June 5, 1992
Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, BUCKLEY and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the application to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of mandamus, it is
ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. The Clerk is directed to enter the petition for a writ of mandamus on the court's general docket. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only where essential to the interests of justice. Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 929 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc). "The writ will issue to block a transfer only if the court concludes, upon review of the entire record, that the district court grossly abused its discretion." In re Tripati, 836 F.2d 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Because petitioners were essentially seeking an earlier parole date, the district court properly construed the habeas corpus. A challenge to parole eligibility, which can be pursued only via a habeas corpus action, is properly brought in a court with personal jurisdiction over the warden of the facility in which petitioner is incarcerated. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring petitioners' action to the District of Kansas, where they are incarcerated.