In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr.

Sixth Circuit

In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr.

914 F.2d 1526, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18099, 1990 WL 143849

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

Docket90-8358

StatusPublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 914 F.2d 1526 (In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr., 914 F.2d 1526, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18099, 1990 WL 143849 (6th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The petitioner, an Ohio inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court to return to him a file stamped copy of the notice of appeal he filed in Richard v. Wells, et al., Dist. No. 90-CV-610. In response, the district court has submitted a copy of its docket sheet and a letter setting forth the procedural history of the above case. It discloses the action was dismissed as frivolous on May 24, 1990. The petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed on July 13, 1990. That appeal is now docketed with this Court as Case No. 90-3657.

The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations where the petitioner can show a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 2556-57, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978); Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 2123-24, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). We conclude the petitioner has not made such a showing in this case. Although the petitioner was granted leave to proceed in the district court as a pauper, that status waives only “prepayment of fees and costs and security....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense.

It therefore is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

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

ORDER

The petitioner, an Ohio inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court to return to him a file stamped copy of the notice of appeal he filed in Richard v. Wells, et al., Dist. No. 90-CV-610. In response, the district court has submitted a copy of its docket sheet and a letter setting forth the procedural history of the above case. It discloses the action was dismissed as frivolous on May 24, 1990. The petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed on July 13, 1990. That appeal is now docketed with this Court as Case No. 90-3657.

The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations where the petitioner can show a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 2556-57, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978); Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 2123-24, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). We conclude the petitioner has not made such a showing in this case. Although the petitioner was granted leave to proceed in the district court as a pauper, that status waives only “prepayment of fees and costs and security....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It does not give the litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense.

It therefore is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

914 F.2d 1526, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18099, 1990 WL 143849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donald-l-richard-sr-ca6-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack