Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jamie N. Moye v. Clerk, Dekalb County Superior Court

474 F.2d 1275

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1973-03-09
Topic: general

holding that federal courts lack the power to issue writs compelling action by state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that a federal district court is not authorized to direct state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that a federal district court is not authorized to direct state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that a federal district court is not authorized to direct state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that a federal district court is not authorized to direct state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that federal courts lack the power to issue writs compelling action by state officials in the performance of their duties | holding that district court properly construed motion to direct state court activities as petition for writ of mandamus | holding that federal courts lack “the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought” | holding that federal courts lack the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought | holding that “a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought’ | confirming that a prisoner’s petition requesting the district court to direct state court activities was in fact a petition for a writ of mandamus that had been properly denied | “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” | federal courts lack authority to “issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties” | "[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” | “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts . . . in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” | “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” | “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” | “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” | mandamus directed at state judicial officials

Citator

Cited by: 119 opinions

MOYE v. CLERK, DeKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,474 F.2d 1275(5th Cir. 1973)

JAMIE N. MOYE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CLERK, DeKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

No. 72-3167.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 9, 1973.

William R. Gignilliat, III, Atlanta, Ga. (Court Appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Robert E. Mozley, Decatur, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Jamie N. Moye, a prisoner of the State of Georgia, filed a pro se petition in the Northern District of Georgia requesting the court to compel the clerk of the DeKalb County Superior Court to comply with his request for production of the transcript and other documents relating to his state conviction. He alleged a need for them as a basic tool necessary for the preparation of his state appeal process.

[2] The district court, construing the request as a petition for a writ of mandamus, summarily dismissed it for failure to exhaust state remedies.

[3] On appeal Moye alleges that he made numerous motions to the state court seeking production but has received no ruling thereon. The respondent herein has failed to file a brief.

[4] Although the writ of mandamus was abolished by Fed.R.Civ.P.81(b), federal courts may issue all writs necessaryPage 1276or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,28 U.S.C. § 1651. But a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas,440 F.2d 383(5th Cir., 1971); Haggard v. Tennessee,421 F.2d 1384(6th Cir., 1970).

[5] Since the present request sought only mandamus relief, it was properly denied.

[6] The judgment of the district court is affirmed.Page 1353

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩