People v. Miles
Decision Date | 20 August 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3642. |
Citation | 177 F. Supp. 172 |
Parties | In the Name of the PEOPLE of the United States of America ex rel. Herman BARMORE, Plaintiff, v. Wendell A. MILES, United States Attorney, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Herman Barmore, in pro. per.
Wendell A. Miles, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., in pro. per.
In considering this motion for a writ of mandamus it is necessary to set forth briefly the factual situation out of which this proceeding arises. Upon jury trial in the circuit court of Muskegon county, Michigan, plaintiff Barmore was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and he is now confined in the State prison of southern Michigan at Jackson. About March 25, 1959, while confined in prison Barmore mailed to defendant Wendell A. Miles, United States attorney, a communication or complaint consisting of 31 typewritten pages, in which he demanded that the Federal government investigate an alleged conspiracy by the circuit judge, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, and deputy sheriffs of Muskegon county; the State police; and the city police and the city magistrate of Muskegon, to obstruct justice in connection with his arrest, trial, conviction, and sentence. On April 16th defendant Miles replied to Barmore's communication or complaint by letter reading as follows:
On May 14, 1959, Barmore filed in this court a complaint entitled "order to show cause," in which he asked for a writ of mandamus requiring defendant Miles to show cause by answering 30 written questions as to why he, as an officer of the Federal government, should not make the investigation demanded. On June 15th defendant Miles filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the United States district court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against him, and on the further ground that the complaint fails to allege facts entitling plaintiff to the relief sought.
The law is well established that a United States district court, outside of the District of Columbia, does not have jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus. In United States ex rel. State of Wisconsin v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 7 Cir., 248 F.2d 804, at page 809, the court said:
"It has been repeatedly held that mandamus may not issue in the district court unless it is necessary for the exercise of independently conferred jurisdiction."
In holding that district courts are without power to grant writs of mandamus or mandatory injunctions, which are in effect writs of mandamus, the court in Updegraff v. Talbott, 4 Cir., 221 F.2d 342, 345, quoted with approval from Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. Smith, 4 Cir., 67 F.2d 451, 457, as follows:
"District Courts of the United States are without jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to control official action of executive officers of the government even where such writs would lie at common law."
In Marshall v. Crotty, 1 Cir., 185 F.2d 622, at page 627, the court said:
"Since the 1948 revision (of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), the courts have adhered to the view that Congress has not vested in the district courts original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus."
In Youngblood v. United States, 6 Cir., 141 F.2d 912, at pages 914, 915, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stern v. South Chester Tube Company
...2 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1924); Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Republican Co., 188 F.Supp. 813 (D.Mass.1960); People of United States ex rel. Barmore v. Miles, 177 F.Supp. 172 (W.D.Mich.1959); Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. United States Department of Interior, 160 F.Supp. 417 (E.D.Pa.1958); Rosen v. ......
-
Johnson v. Interstate Power Company
...Updegraff v. Talbott, 4 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 342; Deglau v. Franke, D.C.D.R.I.1960, 184 F.Supp. 225; People of United States ex rel. Barmore v. Miles, D.C.W.D.Mich.1959, 177 F.Supp. 172; McCarthy v. Watt, D.C.D. Mass.1950, 89 F.Supp. 841, and New York Technical Institute of Maryland v. Limb......