377 F.2d 548 - Finley v. Chandler — 377 F.2d 548

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1989

4 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Frank Finley, appellant, in pro. per.

¶2Elinor Chandler, Los Angeles, Cal, appellee, in pro. per.

¶3Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellant seeks by writ of mandamus to require a former attorney to deliver a transcript of testimony. The attorney has denied possession, or that she ever had possession.

¶7 The writ of mandamus does not exist in federal court procedure. (Rule 81(b).) However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Statute) all courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions, including writs in the nature of mandamus.

¶8Writs in the nature of mandamus, are to compel an administrative officer to do a nondiscretionary administrative act.

¶9While the attorney practicing in the federal courts is an officer of the federal court, this does not make him or her a federal official performing acts, or refusing to perform acts, done under color of federal authority. No attempt to allege the denial of a civil right can change this fact.

¶10The federal courts lack authority to grant the relief herein sought.

¶11The denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.