Brown v. Bush

D.C. Circuit

Brown v. Bush

111 F. App'x 614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 2004

DocketNo. 04-5067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 F. App'x 614 (Brown v. Bush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Bush, 111 F. App'x 614 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 5, 2004 be affirmed. The court properly denied mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, as the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief against the non-federal respondent under § 1361, the investigative and prosecutorial duties that appellant seeks to enforce are discretionary in na[615]*615ture, and, to the extent that appellant is challenging his criminal conviction, he has an adequate alternative remedy in a direct appeal of that conviction. See generally Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 976 n. 1 & 977 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 5, 2004 be affirmed. The court properly denied mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, as the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief against the non-federal respondent under § 1361, the investigative and prosecutorial duties that appellant seeks to enforce are discretionary in na[615]*615ture, and, to the extent that appellant is challenging his criminal conviction, he has an adequate alternative remedy in a direct appeal of that conviction. See generally Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 976 n. 1 & 977 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bush-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack