Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealburden of proofwillrespondentwrit of mandamus
jurisdictionappealwillrespondentwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

Barry; U.S. v.
View Case »
Imelda v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Rosales Justo v. Sessions
View Case »
Sengkeo v. Horgan
View Case »
Singh v. Sessions
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shimizu v. Department of State,

Facts

Rika Shimizu filed a petition for an extraordinary writ and/or writ of mandamus, along with a request for in forma pauperis status. The court reviewed the petition and the supporting documents, concluding that Shimizu did not show a clear right to relief and had other avenues available to address her concerns, such as seeking relief in the underlying case or appealing from an appealable order or judgment.

Upon consideration of petitioner Rika Shimizu's petition for extraordinary writ and/or writ of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, including the request for in forma pauperis status, and the record, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief and has alternative means to seek relief, including seeking relief in the underlying case or on appeal from an appealable order or judgment, as provided by law.

Issue

Did the petitioner demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus?

Did the petitioner demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus?

Rule

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.

a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.

Analysis

The court analyzed the petition and determined that Shimizu did not meet the burden of proof required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court noted that there were alternative means available for Shimizu to seek relief, and it could not be said that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion.

Based on the record, it cannot be said that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction, committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or refused to act on a matter in presiding over the case.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for extraordinary writ and/or writ of mandamus, concluding that Shimizu was not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ.

It is ordered that the petition for extraordinary writ and/or writ of mandamus is denied.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case is the respondent judge, as the court found that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

The prevailing party in this case is the respondent judge, as the court found that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

You must be