Ross v. United States Attorney's Office

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Feb. 20, 1975.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1975-02-20

2 counsel of record

Relies on Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1975-02-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2017

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Michael S. Ross, in pro. per.

Clarke A. Knicely, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before KOELSCH and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW,* District judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The well-settled principle that mandamus does not lie to compel a United States District Attorney to perform a discretionary act (Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375 (2nd Cir. 1973)) is dispositive of this appeal.

¶2

Affirmed.

The Honorable Charles B. Renfrew, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation