Wall v. Pearson, et al

Filing 920090430


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-60772 Conference Calendar April 30, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ROBERT WALL Plaintiff-Appellant v. BRUCE PEARSON, Warden; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:08-CV-234 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Wall, federal prisoner # 13965-052, is appealing the district court's denial of his petition for mandamus and his request for relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651. He argues that the warden suspended the delivery of legal and personal mail because of an incident in another facility and that it may prejudice his ability to prosecute his pending proceeding filed pursuant to 28 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. * No. 08-60772 U.S.C. 2255. Wall contends that he has no other adequate remedy to obtain access to the courts. A "writ of mandamus is an order directing a public official or public body to perform a duty exacted by law." United States v. Denson, 603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir. 1979). It "is an extraordinary remedy for extraordinary causes." In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. v. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958, 961-62 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To obtain the writ, the petitioner must show "that no other adequate means exist to attain the requested relief and that his right to the issuance of the writ is `clear and indisputable.'" In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). The issuance of the writ is within the court's discretion. Denson, 603 F.2d at 1146. If Wall can show that the suspension of the mail delivery has prejudiced his rights in a legal process, his appropriate remedy is to file a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging the denial of access to the courts. See Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1988). Thus, he has an adequate civil remedy. Insofar as Wall seeks relief under the All Writs Act, it is not available unless the applicant can show that he has no other adequate remedy. In re Montes, 677 F.2d 415, 416 (5th Cir. 1982). As previously discussed, Wall has an adequate remedy to obtain relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for mandamus or Wall's request for relief under the All Writs Act, 1651. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?