Ross v. United States Attorney's Office
This text of 511 F.2d 524 (Ross v. United States Attorney's Office) 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.
Opinion
Michael S. ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE for the CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA including Messrs. Robert C. Bonner and Michael
Sulner, Assistant and Deputy Attorney, Criminal Complaints,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 74--1919.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1975.
Michael S. Ross, in pro. per.
Clarke A. Knicely, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before KOELSCH and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW,* District judge.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The well-settled principle that mandamus does not lie to compel a United States District Attorney to perform a discretionary act (Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375 (2nd Cir. 1973)) is dispositive of this appeal.
Affirmed.
The Honorable Charles B. Renfrew, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
511 F.2d 524, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-united-states-attorneys-office-ca9-1975.