Handbook III.G: Original Proceedings

(See Fed. R. App. P. 21; D.C. Cir. Rules 21, 25(c)(3), 32(d)(3).)

1. How Taken

A party seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition directed to a judge, or seeking any other extraordinary writ, must file a petition with the Clerk of this Court and serve the respondent judge or agency and all parties to the action in the trial court or to proceedings before the agency. The petition is limited to 7,800 words if produced using a computer and 30 pages if handwritten or typewritten. The petition must comply with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6). The petition must contain a statement of the issues, the necessary facts, the relief sought, and the reasons the writ should issue. It must include copies of any relevant order or opinion, necessary parts of the record, a certificate of parties and amici curiae as described in Circuit Rule 28(a)(1)(A), and any disclosure statement required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Circuit Rule 26.1. Circuit Rule 21 prescribes the manner of captioning the action. The petition may be filed either electronically or in paper form. See D.C. Cir. Rule 25(c)(3). In addition to the electronic filing or the original in paper form, 4 paper copies of the petition must also be filed. See D.C. Cir. Rules 21(c), 32(d)(3).

The Court handles petitions for extraordinary writs in the same way as dispositive motions, referring them to a special panel for disposition. See infra Part VII.D. If the panel finds the petition to be without merit, it may deny the petition without calling for an answer. Otherwise, the panel issues an order fixing a time within which an answer must be filed. The Court may order oral argument on the petition.

2. Timing

No time limits are applicable.

3. Petitions for Writs of Mandamus Challenging District Court Transfers

Any order by the district court transferring a case to another district is not an appealable order. Therefore, litigants seeking to challenge such a transfer frequently file petitions for writ of mandamus with this Court. See In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also supra Part III.G.1. Unless the case was transferred to an improper forum or there is a substantial issue whether the district court had power to order the transfer, once physical or electronic transfer of the original record takes place, jurisdiction is exclusive in the transferee court, and this Court has no power to review the transfer decision. See In re Asemani, 455 F.3d 296, 300 (D.C. Cir. 2006); In re Briscoe, 976 F.2d 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc).

4. Petitions for Writs of Mandamus Alleging Unreasonable Agency Delay

The Court has identified a category of petitions for writ of mandamus to compel administrative agency action unreasonably delayed. See In re GTE Serv. Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1026 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). These petitions are treated in the same manner as other petitions for writ of mandamus, i.e., petitions are limited to 7,800 words if produced using a computer and 30 pages if handwritten or typewritten and must comply with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6), the petition is initially considered by the special panel, and no petition will be granted unless the Court orders an answer.