Williams v. Kansas State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Service et al
ORDER denying 5 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 8/13/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS
STATE OF KANSAS, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. Rec. Doc.
5. From what the Court is able to discern, plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to remove
restrictions from his driver’s license and a stay of an order presumably issued by one or more of
the defendants. “Although the writ of mandamus was abolished by Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b), federal
courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law . . . .” Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Court,
474 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651). Before a writ of mandamus may issue,
the party requesting it must demonstrate (1) that there is no other adequate means to attain the
desire relief, (2) that entitlement to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) that
issuance is appropriate under the circumstances. In re Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff has not shown that issuance of the writ is necessary or appropriate in the aid of this
court’s jurisdiction, that he lacks other means to achieve the relief requested, that he is clearly or
indisputably entitled to have the writ issue for this purpose, or that issuance is appropriate under
the circumstances. Accordingly, this request is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of August 2014.
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?