Buckenberger v. Reed et al
Filing
305
ORDER AND REASONS denying 302 Motion for writ of mandamus filed by Christopher Buckenberger. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/18/2012.(caa, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER BUCKENBERGER
CIVIL ACTION
Versus
NO.: 06-7393
WALTER REED, ET AL.
SECTION: “F”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s largely unintelligible
motion for writ of mandamus, asking this Court to compel the
production of various documents related to the evidentiary
hearing that was held in this case on July 21, 2011 from the
Magistrate Judge.
Background
Plaintiff filed a Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983
claim against Officer Jarrell of the Madisonville Police
Department in this Court on October 11, 2006.
In his complaint,
plaintiff asserts that Jarrell failed to ensure that plaintiff
received a probable cause determination hearing within 48 hours
of his arrest.
Plaintiff later moved to amend his complaint, and
asserts a Monell claim against the City of Madisonville, arguing
that the City failed to adequately train Jarrell, and is
therefore responsible for the constitutional violation.
The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the
plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiff then moved for a transcript of
the evidentiary hearing, at the Government’s request, citing his
need to have the transcript in order to participate in a
telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate
Judge denied the plaintiff’s request by Order dated September 19,
2011, reasoning that since plaintiff was present at the
evidentiary hearing, he knew what was said at the hearing, and
what happened.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge concluded, the
plaintiff had no need for a transcript in preparation for the
telephone conference.
The Magistrate Judge then issued a Report and Recommendation
on March 29, 2012, recommending that this Court dismiss the
plaintiff’s claims.
Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed the
instant motion for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to
compel the production of certain documents from the Magistrate
Judge.
Plaintiff seeks: (1) a copy of the evidentiary hearing
transcript so he can prepare his objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations; (2) a copy of the outstanding
Mississippi warrant that formed the basis of the plaintiff’s
arrest in 2006; and (3) public records reflecting plaintiff’s
release from prison in 2005.
I.
The Court begins by noting that a writ of mandamus “is a
‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really
extraordinary causes.’"
(1947).
Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-260
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
instructed that:
2
Because the writ is an extraordinary remedy,
the Supreme Court has established three
requirements that must be met before a writ
may issue: (1) "the party seeking issuance of
the writ [must] have no other adequate means
to attain the relief he desires--a condition
designed to ensure that the writ will not be
used as a substitute for the regular appeals
process"; (2) "the petitioner must satisfy
the burden of showing that [his] right to
issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable"; and (3) "even if the first two
prerequisites have been met, the issuing
court, in the exercise of its discretion,
must be satisfied that the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances."
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008).
The facts of this case do not present the type of
“extraordinary cause” for which a writ of mandamus is reserved.
The record in this case discloses that plaintiff has not
previously requested a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript
for the purpose of submitting objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Instead, the plaintiff
requested a copy so that he could prepare for an upcoming
telephone conference – an entirely different reason.
Therefore,
the Magistrate Judge never had the chance to consider the
request, which now forms one of the bases of the plaintiff’s
motion for mandamus.
The record also contains no entry showing
that the plaintiff has made any effort to secure copies of the
Mississippi arrest warrant, or the release from prison records he
says he now needs.
Without a showing that there is “no other
3
adequate means” for the plaintiff to obtain the documents he
seeks, the plaintiff cannot meet the first prong of the In Re
Volkswagen test.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: the plaintiff’s motion for a
writ of mandamus is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 18, 2012.
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?