Showing posts with label Mandamus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandamus. Show all posts

Fourth Circuit: In re: Caryn Strickland

 

Mandamus for trial scheduling neither justified nor prudent, as the statute only establishes that the court need give priority to the claim, and the court's offer of a trial prior to full discovery, as well as the petitioner's agreement to defer proceedings for arbitration, suffice to establish that the claim was being promptly addressed.

(Entire circuit recused, panel from outside.)

In re: Caryn Strickland

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Anthony Jordan

 

Considering the situation under the supervisory powers of the appellate court over the proceedings in the District Court, rather than under Due Process: the District Court did not evaluate the defendant's defense, make a finding as to the willfulness of the violation, or sufficiently explain the sentence in light of the parsimony principle and the sentencing statute.


USA v. Anthony Jordan

First Circuit: In Re: Da Graca

 

In a Habeas class action seeking relief for immigration detainees in the current pandemic, supervisory Mandamus doesn't run because the lower court has not palpably erred; it has reduced the detainee population significantly.  Advisory Mandamus doesn't run, since the determination of pandemic severity is a factual question, not a legal question, and since the population has been lowered, the balance between extraordinary circumstances and likely success doesn't need to be corrected.

 In Re: Da Graca

Federal Circuit: Mylan v. Janssen

 

As the general statutory grant of jurisdiction to review decisions is modified by a specific provision making the refusal to institute IPR nonreviewable, courts have no jurisdiction over the Director's delegated decision not to institute proceedings.  Since the APA does not in itself create jurisdiction, an administrative challenge is similarly unavailable.

Even though Mandamus challenging the proceeding only runs from the Federal Circuit, as the sole court with sufficient prospective jurisdiction, as there is neither a clear and undisputable right to relief nor a colorable constitutional claim, nor historical precedent sufficient to justify a Due Process claim, the writ is unavailable here.


Mylan v. Janssen

Federal Circuit: Martin v. O'Rourke

Although the All Writs Act isn't an independent basis for jurisdiction, Mandamus against unreasonable administrative delay validly runs from the Circuit Courts when necessary to protect their future jurisdiction.

Mandamus against delay by the Dept of Veterans Affairs should be governed not by a finding of the official's refusal to act, but by a common-law balancing test.

Concur: An over five-year appeals process, mostly composed of ministerial tasks and docketing, is excessive.  Mandamus is the only viable option.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1747.Opinion.6-5-2018.1.pdf