Million v. Rausch

E.D. Tennessee

Million v. Rausch

DecidedJanuary 14, 2025

Docket3:22-cv-00453

StatusUnknown

This text of Million v. Rausch (Million v. Rausch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Million v. Rausch, (E.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

GEORGE MILLION, ) ) Case No. 3:22-cv-453 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the ) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his ) official capacity, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to require the Tennessee Attorney General to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-6-109(b)(9) within 60 days. (Docs. 78, 81.) § 8-6-109(b)(9) states that the Tennessee Attorney General has a duty to: [D]efend the constitutionality and validity of all legislation of statewide applicability, except as provided in subdivision (b)(10), enacted by the general assembly, except in those instances where the attorney general and reporter is of the opinion that such legislation is not constitutional, in which event the attorney general and reporter shall so certify to the speaker of each house of the general assembly[.]

While Defendants do not explicitly request a writ of mandamus against the Tennessee Attorney General, they ask that the Court order the attorney general to fulfill the duty outlined in § 8-6- 109(b)(9). The Court construes their motions as petitions for mandamus. Defendants do not cite any authority suggesting that the Court can compel the Tennessee Attorney General––a state officer––to perform the duties listed in § 8-6-109(b)(9). (See Doc. 78); Hoffman v. Stump, 172 F.3d 48 (Table) (6th Cir. 1998) (“[F]ederal courts may not issue writs of mandamus to compel state officers to act in accordance with state law.” (citations omitted)); Andrade v. Calif. Dep't of Corr., No. 5:21-CV-00202-FMO-JC, 2021 WL 412267, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (collecting cases). Further, the state of Tennessee is already a party to this action. If the state of Tennessee and Defendant Rausch are dismissed from this action, the Court will act as necessary to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). Defendants’ motions (Docs. 78, 81) are DENIED. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

GEORGE MILLION, ) ) Case No. 3:22-cv-453 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the ) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his ) official capacity, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to require the Tennessee Attorney General to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-6-109(b)(9) within 60 days. (Docs. 78, 81.) § 8-6-109(b)(9) states that the Tennessee Attorney General has a duty to: [D]efend the constitutionality and validity of all legislation of statewide applicability, except as provided in subdivision (b)(10), enacted by the general assembly, except in those instances where the attorney general and reporter is of the opinion that such legislation is not constitutional, in which event the attorney general and reporter shall so certify to the speaker of each house of the general assembly[.]

While Defendants do not explicitly request a writ of mandamus against the Tennessee Attorney General, they ask that the Court order the attorney general to fulfill the duty outlined in § 8-6- 109(b)(9). The Court construes their motions as petitions for mandamus. Defendants do not cite any authority suggesting that the Court can compel the Tennessee Attorney General––a state officer––to perform the duties listed in § 8-6-109(b)(9). (See Doc. 78); Hoffman v. Stump, 172 F.3d 48 (Table) (6th Cir. 1998) (“[F]ederal courts may not issue writs of mandamus to compel state officers to act in accordance with state law.” (citations omitted)); Andrade v. Calif. Dep't of Corr., No. 5:21-CV-00202-FMO-JC, 2021 WL 412267, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (collecting cases). Further, the state of Tennessee is already a party to this action. If the state of Tennessee and Defendant Rausch are dismissed from this action, the Court will act as necessary to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). Defendants’ motions (Docs. 78, 81) are DENIED. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Million v. Rausch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/million-v-rausch-tned-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack