Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cx/e0f0684-G|\/IS Document 11 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES COPPEDGE, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. E Civ. Action No. 07—684~***—MPT
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ;
Defendant. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, James Coppedge, filed this Petition For E; Pagpg
Writ Of Mandamusl And Inquiry against the U.S. District Court
Clerk (“Clerk”}2. Plaintiff filed a similar writ in Civil Action
No. 07-770-GMS which was denied and dismissed on December 3,
2007. Plaintiff’s Petition For E; Parts 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 Philade1phia.”
(D. 1. a .)
II. DISCUSSION
To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361,
Plaintiff must satisfy three conditions. First, the party
1The 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 1:07—cv—00684-G|\/IS Document 11 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
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. 367, 380 (2004) (citation
omitted). Next, he must carry the burden of showing that “his
right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." gd.
at 381 (citations omitted). Finally, “the issuing court . . .
must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances." ld.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a
Writ Of Mandamus. To the extent that Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff has available to him other
adequate means. Indeed, he need merely wait until there is a
ruling in this case that determines 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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, this lawsuit is in its very early stages,
..2..

Case 1:07—cv—00684-G|\/IS Document 11 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
with no service having taken place, much less the entry of a
Court ruling that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the
City of Philadelphia.
Clearly, issuance of a writ is inappropriate under the
circumstances and the petition is frivolous. Plaintiff has
failed to establish any basis for mandamus relief and, therefore,
his Petition For E; Parts Writ Of Mandamus will be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition For E; Pargg
Writ Of Mandamus And Inquiry is DENIED. Plaintiff is placed on
notice that repetitive motions or petitions will not be
considered and will be summarily denied.

UNII§D S ATE DISTRICEQJUDGE
DATED: 2 ,. ZOO`}
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00684-GMS

Document 11

Filed 12/11/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00684-GMS

Document 11

Filed 12/11/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00684-GMS

Document 11

Filed 12/11/2007

Page 3 of 3