United States v. Williamson, 2:13-cr-20011-KHV

Defendant Brett J. Williamson, sentenced to life on May 28, 2015, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on March 1, 2022 seeking court reporters’ backup audio recordings from criminal hearings in 2013–2014.
Williamson invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel court reporters to produce their backup audio tapes.
He does not challenge the accuracy of the official stenographic transcripts; he seeks the backups to capture tone, pauses, hesitations, and other demeanor indicators.
Mandamus requires a clear and indisputable right to the writ, a nondiscretionary duty by the respondent, and lack of any other adequate remedy.
The court found Williamson failed to show the reporters retain backup tapes, failed to show a nondiscretionary duty to disclose them, and did not show lack of other remedies; the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The court also noted procedural infirmities (petition filed in criminal case without filing fee or in forma pauperis motion) but dismissed mainly on mandamus grounds.

Issue	Williamson's Argument	Court/Reporters' Argument	Held
Do court reporters retain backup audio recordings?	Williamson assumes backups exist and seeks them.	No showing that reporters retain such backups.	Williamson failed to show tapes exist.
Do reporters have a nondiscretionary duty to disclose backups?	Reporters must produce backups to reveal full truth (tone, pauses, demeanor).	Disclosure of backups is discretionary; no automatic duty absent reason to doubt transcript accuracy.	No nondiscretionary duty shown; mandamus inappropriate.
Is mandamus an available remedy here?	Mandamus is proper to compel production of government records.	Mandamus is extraordinary and requires exhaustion of other remedies and a clear duty.	Mandamus denied — petitioner did not meet threshold requirements.
Procedural requirements for mandamus filing	Petition filed in this criminal case without separate civil filing or fee.	A mandamus petition is generally a separate civil action and requires filing fee or IFP motion.	Court noted procedural defect but dismissed chiefly on substantive jurisdictional grounds.

In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2009) (mandamus is a drastic remedy for extraordinary situations)
Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988) (elements required to obtain mandamus relief)
In re Pratt, 511 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2007) (party must show reason to doubt transcript accuracy before obtaining backup recordings)
Smith v. U.S. District Court Officers, 203 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2000) (party seeking backup tapes must establish grounds to question stenographic transcript)
Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477 (10th Cir. 1995) (whether an act is discretionary or ministerial affects mandamus jurisdiction)
Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers v. Brown, 656 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1981) (mandamus proper only where it is an appropriate means of relief)
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) (mandamus intended only where petitioner exhausted other avenues and a clear nondiscretionary duty exists)