Jackson v. Shinseik et al

Filing 63

USCA ORDER re: 58 Letter as to petition for writ of mandamus filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition is denied and the motion for in forma pauperis is also denied. USCA case no. 11-1167. (bjrsl, )

FILED
Appellate Case: 11-1167 Document: 01018634261 Date Filed: 05/04/2011 Page: Appeals
United States Court of 1
Tenth Circuit

M ay 4, 2011

UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court

In re: D AV ID JA CK SO N ,
Petitioner.

No. 11-1167
(D.C. No. 1:10-CV -02596-M SK-CB S )
( D. Colo.)

OR DER

Before L UC ER O, O’BRIEN, and TYM KOVICH , Circuit Judges.

This matter comes before the court on petitioner David Jackson’s petition
for a writ of mandamus and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. M r. Jackson is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in case No. 10-cv-02596-M SK-CBS
currently pending in the United States District Court of the District of Colorado.
The district court granted M r. Jackson’s request to have the U.S. M arshal serve
the complaint on the two defendant officials of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, which it did. M r. Jackson subsequently amended the complaint to add
tw o more defendants, the United States and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He mailed the amended complaint to AUSA M endelson on behalf of all the named
defendants and also submitted summonses to the Clerk, asking that they be signed
and sealed in accordance with Fed. R Civ. P. 4(b).

Appellate Case: 11-1167 Document: 01018634261 Date Filed: 05/04/2011 Page: 2

M r. Jackson alleges that the Clerk refused to sign the summonses because
the court had directed service by the U.S. M arshal. He further alleges that the
district court records do not reflect that the U.S. M arshal has served the amended
complaint on any of the defendants. M r. Jackson therefore asks that this court
direct the district court to compel service of the amended complaint on all the
named defendants.
“[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in
extraordinary circumstances.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180,
1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To obtain mandamus
relief, M r. Jackson must demonstrate that he “ha[s] no other adequate means to
attain the relief he desires” and that “his right to the writ is clear and
indisputable.” Id. at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, this court,
“in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
W e note that several days after he filed this request for mandamus relief,
M r. Jackson filed an emergency motion in the district court seeking the same
relief. The district court has set a hearing on that motion in two weeks, on
M ay 11, 2011. Further, two of the defendants have already responded to the
amended complaint. Under the circumstances, we conclude that M r. Jackson has
not made an adequate showing and that the grant of mandamus relief is not
appropriate.
-2-

Appellate Case: 11-1167 Document: 01018634261 Date Filed: 05/04/2011 Page: 3

M r. Jackson’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. His motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court also is DENIED and he is directed
to pay the filing fee forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUM AKER, Clerk

-3-