Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cv—OO770-GI\/IS Document 3 Filed 12/O3/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F OR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES COPPEDGE, )
Petitioner, J
v. J Civ. Action No. 07-770-UNA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT CLERK, 3
Respondent. I
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The petitioner, James Coppedge ("Coppedge"), filed this petition for a writ of mandamusl
against the respondent, U.S. District Court Clerk ("Clerk")2. Coppedge did not pay the required
filing fee, nor did he submit an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Coppedge’s
ex parte writ of mandamus and inquiry seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Clerk to "enter
judgment and/or execute compulsory order for the immediate payment of ten million directed to
the City of Philadelphia? (D.I. 1.)
II. DISCUSSION
To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 a petitioner must satisfy three
conditions. First, the party seeking issuance of a writ must demonstrate that he has "no other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires." Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S.
’The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of
mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the united States or any agency thereof to
perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
2Peter Dalleo is the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Case 1 :O7—cv—OO770-GI\/IS ( Document 3 Filed 12/O3/2007 Page 2 of 3
367, 380 (2004) (citation omitted). Next, the petitioner must carry the burden of showing that
"his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." [al at 381 (citations omitted).
Finally, "the issuing court . . . must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances? Id
Coppedge has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. To the extent
that Coppedge asks this court to order the Clerk to enter judgment and /or execute a compulsory
order for the immediate payment of ten million dollars to him by the City of Philadelphia,
Coppedge has available to him other adequate means. Indeed, on October 30, 2007, he filed a
lawsuit in this court against the City of Philadelphia, Civ. Action No. 07-684—* **-MPT, which
should determine whether he is entitled to recovery. To date, however, there has been no service,
much less judgment entered against the City of Philadelphia.
To the extent that Coppedge asks this court to order the Clerk to enter judgment against
the City of Philadelphia or execute a compulsory order for it to make immediate payment of ten
million dollars, the court finds that Coppedge failed to demonstrate that his right to issuance of
the writ is “is clear and indisputable." Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381 (citations omitted). As discussed
above, Coppedge’s lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia is in its very early stages, with no
service having taken place, much less the entry of a court ruling that Coppedge is entitled to
judgment against the City of Philadelphia.
Clearly, issuance of a writ is inappropriate under the circumstances. Coppedge has failed
` to establish any basis for mandamus relief and, therefore, his petition will be denied and
dismissed. `
-2-

Caseet :07-cv-OO770—G|\/IS Document 3 Filed 12/O3/2007 Page 3 of 3
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition for an ex parte writ of mandamus and inquiry
is denied and dismissed.
CHI UNITED STATE; DIST JUDGE
i Q-<-· 3 , 2007
Wilmington, Delaware
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00770-GMS

Document 3

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00770-GMS

Document 3

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00770-GMS

Document 3

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 3 of 3