Vince Andrich v. United States District Court for the Central District of California
668 F.3d 1050
9th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus under the CVRA to intervene and be heard at Kirk McMahan's sentencing.
- District court denied petitioners' motion to intervene, holding CVRA rights do not apply to them and declining to hear their proffered evidence.
- Petitioners argue this court should issue relief under the CVRA or under traditional mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
- Respondents oppose the petition; briefing and record focus on CVRA applicability and evidentiary hearing discretion.
- Panel applies Bauman v. United States Dist. Court framework, focusing on clear error as dispositive, to review the district court.
- Court concludes petitioners failed to show clear and indisputable right to mandamus; district court did not clearly err or abuse discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVRA applicability to petitioners | Petitioners argue CVRA grants victim status to them. | McMahan and United States contend CVRA rights do not extend to petitioners here. | CVRA rights do not apply to petitioners. |
| District court's denial of intervention and hearing | Petitioners claim district court abused discretion by denying intervention and evidence hearing. | Defendants assert no abuse; court properly declined to hear petitioners' evidence under CVRA and discretion. | No reversible error; district court's decision not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for CVRA mandamus petitions | Petitioners rely on CVRA mandamus relief or traditional mandamus. | Defendants urge standard focusing on legal error or abuse of discretion; Bauman factors guidance. | Court reviews under Bauman with emphasis on clear legal error; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) (five-factor Bauman test governs mandamus review)
- Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 98 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1996) (clear error as dispositive in mandamus context)
- Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 426 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1976) (burden to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus)
- Kenna v. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006) (CVRA mandamus petitions focus on legal error or abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (traditional standard of review applies to CVRA mandamus petitions)