Brooks v. United States Marshal
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/3/2012; an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
BILLY WAYNE BROOKS
PETITIONER
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-P27-R
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he seeks to have the U.S.
Marshal Service transport him to a bank to review records. He seems to make this request in the
context of an action he believes he has against the Franklin Bank and Trust Company, although
there is no such action in this Court. He attaches to his petition a request for production of
documents from the Franklin Bank and Trust Company having to do with the closing of his
checking account in 2004.
It is axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “As courts of
limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers authorized by the
Constitution and statute.” Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). “If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishes the writ of mandamus. Title
28 United States Code § 1651 does allow federal courts to issue all writs necessary to enforce the
law in their respective jurisdictions, including writs in the nature of mandamus. Haggard v.
Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1385 (6th Cir. 1970). Generally, the federal courts can only issue
writs of mandamus in aid of jurisdiction previously acquired on some other independent ground.
Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 111 (1906); Haggard v. Tennessee,
421 F.2d at 1385; State of Wisconsin. v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 248 F.2d 804, 808 (7th
Cir. 1957). “[T]he extraordinary writ[] of mandamus . . . will be issued . . . only in extreme and
unusual cases.” Califano v. Moynahan, 596 F.2d 1320, 1321 (6th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the district courts have “original jurisdiction of any action in the
nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof
to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” However, before this statute’s jurisdiction can be
invoked, it is necessary to have a duty owed to the plaintiff. Where no duty is owed, no
mandamus jurisdiction exists under § 1361. Maczko v. Joyce, 814 F.2d 308, 310 (6th Cir. 1987)
(“The existence of jurisdiction under section 1361 is inextricably bound with the merits of
whether a writ of mandamus should issue; in order to establish either jurisdiction or entitlement
to the writ, a court must find that a duty is owed to the plaintiff.”); see also Giza v. Secretary of
Health, Ed. and Welfare, 628 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir. 1980); City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe, 546
F.2d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 1976) (“There can be no mandamus jurisdiction if no “duty” exists on the
part of the defendants.”); Hamandi v. Chertoff, 550 F. Supp. 2d 46, 54 (D.D.C. 2008) (holding
where no law obligated the FBI to perform background checks, no mandamus jurisdiction
existed regarding an action seeking to compel such performance).
The Marshal Service has no duty to Petitioner, a state prisoner. Petitioner’s status as a
2
state prisoner certainly does not entitle him to have travel arrangements provided by the Marshal
Service at his whim. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:
cc:
May 3, 2012
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4413.009
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?