In Re Earl Christian

Eighth Circuit

In Re Earl Christian

606 F.2d 822, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11384

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1979

Docket79-1542

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 606 F.2d 822 (In Re Earl Christian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Earl Christian, 606 F.2d 822, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11384 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a Civil Service employee, was fired on July 7, 1978. On July 8, 1978, he commenced an administrative proceeding [hereinafter the administrative appeal] to review that action. The instant petition for a writ of mandamus is to compel a decision in the administrative appeal pending since July 8, 1978.

Because the administrative appeal was pending at the time the 1978 Service Reform Act became effective, January 11, 1979, review of the administrative appeal in the instant case would be in the federal district court rather than this Court. See S.Rep.No. 95-969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 63, *823 reprinted in [1978] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 2723, 2785. Since the petitioner has neither cited authority nor otherwise shown why he first sought relief from this Court, it would be inappropriate for us to grant the writ. Moreover, since the petition was filed, an appropriate government agency has heard and decided the petitioner’s case. The issue raised in this proceeding is moot. 1 The writ is denied.

It is so ordered.

1

. In addition, part of the petitioner’s claim is racial discrimination. Thus, it appears he could bring suit at this time in federal district court for failure of the government agencies to take action on the complaint within 180 days, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Since he thereby has an adequate remedy at law, issuance of writ would be inappropriate.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a Civil Service employee, was fired on July 7, 1978. On July 8, 1978, he commenced an administrative proceeding [hereinafter the administrative appeal] to review that action. The instant petition for a writ of mandamus is to compel a decision in the administrative appeal pending since July 8, 1978.

Because the administrative appeal was pending at the time the 1978 Service Reform Act became effective, January 11, 1979, review of the administrative appeal in the instant case would be in the federal district court rather than this Court. See S.Rep.No. 95-969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 63, *823 reprinted in [1978] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 2723, 2785. Since the petitioner has neither cited authority nor otherwise shown why he first sought relief from this Court, it would be inappropriate for us to grant the writ. Moreover, since the petition was filed, an appropriate government agency has heard and decided the petitioner’s case. The issue raised in this proceeding is moot. 1 The writ is denied.

It is so ordered.

1

. In addition, part of the petitioner’s claim is racial discrimination. Thus, it appears he could bring suit at this time in federal district court for failure of the government agencies to take action on the complaint within 180 days, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Since he thereby has an adequate remedy at law, issuance of writ would be inappropriate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 F.2d 822, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-earl-christian-ca8-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack