In re KENNETH ANDERSON BROWN – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the relief sought was not available through that remedy.
Standard: Mandamus is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and no other adequate means to attain it.
Vote: Per curiam opinion denying the petition.
Practical effect: The denial of the petition leaves the district court's classification of the action as a civil proceeding intact. The petitioner's request to have the matter treated as a Bill in Equity with ex parte and in camera proceedings was rejected.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Kenneth Anderson Brown. The court held that the relief sought was not available through this drastic remedy.

Background

Kenneth Anderson Brown, proceeding pro se, petitioned the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. He sought an order directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to docket his proposed action as a Bill in Equity rather than a civil action. Brown requested that the district court administer the action as an equitable proceeding, conduct proceedings ex parte and in camera, and preserve the status quo concerning a trust corpus. He also filed a supplemental petition requesting a hearing in exclusive equity and preventing further unjust enrichment.

The court’s reasoning

The court concluded that mandamus relief is a drastic remedy that should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that such relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and has no other adequate means to attain the relief desired. The court further stated that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Because the relief sought by Brown was not available by way of mandamus, the court denied the petition.

What it means going forward

The denial of the petition leaves the district court’s classification of the action as a civil proceeding intact. The petitioner’s request to have the matter treated as a Bill in Equity with ex parte and in camera proceedings was rejected.