FRANK FINLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELINOR CHANDLER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that federal courts lack the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a former attorney to deliver a transcript.
Appellant sought a writ of mandamus to compel a former attorney to deliver a transcript of testimony, which the attorney denied possessing. The attorn…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse All Writs Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1651) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks by writ of mandamus to require a former attorney to deliver a transcript of testimony. The attorney has denied possession, or that she ever had possession.
The writ of mandamus does not exist in federal court procedure. (Rule 81(b).) However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Statute) all courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions, including writs in the nature of mandamus.
Writs in the nature of mandamus, are to compel an administrative officer to do a nondiscretionary administrative act.
While the attorney practicing in the federal courts is an officer of the federal court, this does not make him or her a federal official performing acts, or refusing to perform acts, done under color of federal authority. No attempt to allege the denial of a civil right can change this fact.
The federal courts lack authority to grant the relief herein sought.
The denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haggard v. State OF Tenn. & Honorable Joseph D. Duncan, 421 F.2d 1384 (6th Cir. 1970)