In Re Grant
394 U.S. App. D.C. 301
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Grant was convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on crack cocaine counts and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Grant filed a civil action in the DC District Court against federal prosecutors alleging constitutional rights violations in his criminal proceedings.
- The district court ordered transfer of that civil action to the EDPA; Grant appealed the transfer order pro se.
- Because transfer orders are non-appealable, the DC Circuit construed the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and required a filing-fee or a in forma pauperis motion under the PLRA.
- The question presented was whether the PLRA filing-fee requirements apply to petitions for writs of mandamus in civil proceedings.
- The court held that PLRA filing-fee requirements apply to mandamus petitions in civil cases, treating the petition as a form of interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do PLRA filing-fee requirements apply to mandamus petitions in civil cases? | Grant contends the fee does not apply to mandamus petitions. | Respondents argue the PLRA applies because the petition arises from a civil action and constitutes an appeal. | Yes, apply PLRA filing-fee requirements. |
| Is a mandamus petition in this context a civil action or appeal for PLRA purposes? | Grant treats it as a procedural, not civil, device. | Petition functions as an interlocutory appeal aiding appellate jurisdiction. | Mandamus petition is a form of interlocutory appeal; PLRA applies. |
| What governs unpublished orders' precedential value when applying PLRA in mandamus contexts? | Unpublished orders may be persuasive but not binding precedents. | Unpublished dispositions should guide outcome where applicable. | Unpublished dispositions may be persuasive but do not bind panels; follow merits reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (filing-fee requirements apply to certain mandamus-like petitions predicated on civil claims)
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943) (exclusive appellate jurisdiction and writs in aid of appellate jurisdiction)
- Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (writs issued in aid of appellate jurisdiction; limits on authority)
- In re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1996) (PLRA fees apply to certain mandamus petitions)
- Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 1996) (mandamus petitions predicated on civil claims subject to PLRA fees)
- In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 1997) (PLRA applies to mandamus petitions arising from ongoing civil rights actions)
- Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415 (10th Cir. 1996) (PLRA applicability to all mandamus petitions)