Anderson v. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

D. Montana

Anderson v. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

District Court, D. Montana·Decided July 25, 2023·No. 9:23-cv-00075·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: MICHAEL T. ANDERSON. No. 23-70118

______________________________ D.C. No. 9:23-cv-00075-DLC MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, District of Montana, Missoula Petitioner, ORDER v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA,

Respondent,

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Before: TALLMAN, N.R. SMITH, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2021) (“To determine whether a writ of mandamus should be granted, we weigh the five factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court.”); Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: MICHAEL T. ANDERSON. No. 23-70118

______________________________ D.C. No. 9:23-cv-00075-DLC MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, District of Montana, Missoula Petitioner, ORDER v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA,

Respondent,

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Before: TALLMAN, N.R. SMITH, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2021) (“To determine whether a writ of mandamus should be granted, we weigh the five factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court.”); Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED.

Anderson v. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, (D. Mont. 2023).

Pincite

Anderson v. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (Anderson v. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related