USA V. USDC-NVR, No. 14-70486 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe United States filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district judge’s policy restricting the pro hac vice admission of government attorneys. After the petition was filed, the district judge reversed his previous order denying an attorney in this case pro hac vice admission. The court concluded that the case was not moot and that the controversy remains live where it was reasonably likely that the judge will again deny the pro hac vice applications of attorneys for the United States; while the reversal of the challenged order did not render this controversy moot, it rendered a formal writ of mandamus a superfluous or ineffective remedy here; in this case, the judge acted outside his discretion by failing to provide a valid reason to deny the attorney's application for pro hac vice admission; the judge committed clear error; the first and second Bauman v. U.S. District Court factors weighed in favor of issuing mandamus when the petition was filed, and weigh in favor of offering guidance to the district court; the fact that the judge's order in this case was not an isolated occurrence weighed in favor of granting mandamus relief when the petition was filed; the district court's order raises important problems or issues of first impression and weighed in favor of mandamus relief when the petition was filed and weighs in favor of offering guidance to the district court even though a formal writ is no longer necessary; and issuing a formal writ would have been an appropriate remedy but for the judge’s voluntary cessation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition without prejudice.
Court Description: Mandamus. The panel denied without prejudice a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by the United States challenging District Judge Robert C. Jones’s policy of denying the applications for pro hac vice admission of U.S. Department of Justice attorneys who are not admitted to the Nevada Bar. After the United States filed its petition for a writ of mandamus, Judge Jones reversed his previous order denying the United States attorney permission to appear. The panel held that this did not render the controversy moot because the challenged conduct can reasonably be expected to recur. The panel held that the controversy remains live, and the court had jurisdiction to consider the petition. The panel held that while the reversal of the challenged order did not render the controversy moot, it rendered a formal writ of mandamus a superfluous or ineffective remedy. The panel further held that the court was not categorically precluded from opining on the merits of the IN RE UNITED STATES 3 mandamus petition when issuance of the writ would no longer be effective. The panel considered whether mandamus relief would have been appropriate at the time the petition was filed, and applied the five factors enumerated in Bauman v. U.S. District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). The panel held that at a minimum, a court’s decision to deny pro hac vice admission must be based on criteria reasonably related to promoting the orderly administration of justice, or some other legitimate policy of the courts. The panel concluded that Judge Jones acted outside his discretion by failing to provide a valid reason to deny the United States attorney’s application for pro hac vice admission, and held that the requirement of clear error was satisfied. The panel further held that the United States had no other means to obtain relief, and the United States was harmed when the United States attorney was denied pro hac vice admission. The panel also held that the fact that Judge Jones’ order was not an isolated occurrence weighed in favor of granting mandamus relief when the petition was filed. Finally, the panel held that the district court order raised important issues. After weighing the Bauman factors, the panel concluded that it was appropriate to offer guidance to the district court. Judge Wallace concurred only in the judgment to deny the writ of mandamus because Judge Jones’s reversal of his prior order denying admission to United States attorneys rendered unnecessary the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Judge Wallace stated that the proper, and more effective, place from which the government may obtain assurances that Judge Jones would discontinue his practice of routinely denying admission to the government’s out-of-state attorneys, and then reversing course when such denials 4 IN RE UNITED STATES became subject to appellate review, was the Judicial Council of the Circuit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.