Frank Finley v. Elinor Chandler

Ninth Circuit

Frank Finley v. Elinor Chandler

377 F.2d 548

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1967

Docket20836

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 377 F.2d 548 (Frank Finley v. Elinor Chandler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Finley v. Elinor Chandler, 377 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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.

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.

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

While 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.

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

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

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