Anglin v. Supreme Court of Kentucky
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Wesley S. Anglin's petition for a declaration of rights and for mandamus relief 1 is DENIED. (2) This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 5/8/2015.(CBD)cc: COR, Wesley Anglin via US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
WESLEY S. ANGLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-075-GFVT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
&
ORDER
***** ***** ***** *****
Wesley S. Anglin is an inmate in custody of the Kentucky Department of Corrections and
is presently confined in the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”) located in West
Liberty, Kentucky. Proceeding pro se, Anglin has filed a “Petition For Declaration of Rights;
and Mandamus Relief Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c),” concerning an appellate brief he had filed in
the Kentucky Supreme Court. Anglin claims that the Clerk of the Kentucky Supreme Court
returned this brief to him, explaining that his case was still pending in the Kentucky Court of
Appeals. [R. 1-1 at 1]. For administrative purposes, the Clerk of the Court classified this case as
a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1361. Anglin requests this Court
to direct the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
Because Anglin is an inmate proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
conduct a preliminary review of his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) (B), 1915A. Since
Anglin is not represented by an attorney, the Court liberally construes his claims and accepts his
factual allegations as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Having determined that it is without jurisdiction to
render the relief that Anglin seeks, the Court will deny Anglin’s petition and dismiss this matter.
I
On May 27, 2011, Anglin was convicted in Breckinridge Circuit Court of First Degree
Robbery and received a 13-year sentence of imprisonment.1 See Commonwealth of Kentucky v.
Wesley S. Anglin, No. 09-CR-057 (Breckinridge Cir. Ct. 2009). On August 15, 2012, postsentencing, Anglin moved for a reduction of sentence by means of a sentencing credit
adjustment; that motion was denied on September 13, 2012. Anglin appealed the denial of his
motion for a reduction of sentence to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. See Wesley S. Anglin v.
Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2012-CA-001799-MR.
The attachments to Anglin’s petition reflect the following:
1.
While his appeal was pending, on June 6, 2013, Assistant Attorney General
Courtney J. Hightower, an attorney employed by the Office of the Attorney General, who was
counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Anglin’s appeal, moved to withdraw from the
case as counsel for the Commonwealth and to hold the appeal in abeyance for a brief period of
time. As grounds for that motion, counsel advised that Anglin’s appeal concerned an issue
regarding the amount of custody credit Anglin is due and that those matters are more
appropriately handled by the Kentucky Department of Corrections rather than the Office of the
Attorney General. [R. 1-1, Page ID## 18-20].
This information was obtained from the Kentucky Online Offender Lookup (“KOOL”) feature of the Kentucky
Department of Corrections’ official website. See http://kool.corrections.ky.gov/KOOL/Details/260018 (last visited
on April 29, 2015).
1
2
2.
On or about June 11, 2013, Anglin, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in his appeal
styled “Motion to Hold Appellee in Default/Notice of Default.” [R. 1-1, Page ID## 16-17]. On
July 31, 2013, the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied this motion. [R. 1-1, Page ID# 18].
3.
On July 31, 2013, the Kentucky Court of Appeals granted the Commonwealth’s
motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, passed the motion to withdraw as counsel, and ordered
that the appeal would be held in abeyance for a period of 20 days to allow the Office of the
Attorney General to file a motion to substitute counsel, at which time the appeal would be
returned to the Court’s docket for further action. [R. 1-1, Page ID## 14-15].
4.
On August 15, 2013, Anglin filed a Notice of Appeal in the Kentucky Court of
Appeals, appealing from the denial of his motion for default/notice of default. [R. 1-1, Page ID#
16].
5.
Apparently, on August 15, 2013, Anglin also filed an appellant brief in the
Kentucky Supreme Court relative to his appeal of the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ denial of his
motion for default/notice of default. However, the Clerk of the Kentucky Supreme Court
returned Anglin’s appellant brief to him because the case from which he had appealed, Case No.
2012-CA-001799-MR, was still pending in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. [R. 1-1, Page ID# 4].
II
To reiterate, in this mandamus petition, Anglin requests an order directing the Kentucky
Supreme Court to hear the appeal from the decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals to deny
his motion for default judgment/notice of default relative to the Commonwealth’s motion to hold
the appeal in abeyance until there could be a substitution of counsel in Case No. 2012-CA001799-MR. This Court, however, is without jurisdiction to issue the mandamus relief that he
3
seeks. The Sixth Circuit has long held that “federal courts have no authority to issue writs of
mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”
Haggard v. Tenn., 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970); see also Seyka v. Corrigan, 46 Fed.
App’x 260, 261 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming a district court’s refusal to issue a writ of mandamus
requiring the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court to hear his appeal). Relief in the
manner of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, available only “where the petitioner can show a
clear and indisputable right to the relief sought and only in circumstances amounting to a judicial
usurpation of power.” In re Gregory, 181 F.3d 713, 715 (6th Cir. 1999). Anglin has not shown
that this extraordinary relief is necessary here.
Moreover, to the extent Anglin asks this Court to review the state court’s decision
declining to hear his interlocutory appeal, [see R. 1 at 3], this Court lacks authority to do so
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Seyka, 46 Fed. App’x at 261 (citing Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
415-16 (1923)).
III
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1)
Wesley S. Anglin’s petition for a declaration of rights and for mandamus relief
[R. 1] is DENIED.
(2)
This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from
the Court’s docket.
4
This the 8th day of May, 2015.
5
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?