Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

15-71225 - Khamphou Khouthong v. USDC-CAFR

Download Files


Document in Context
15-71225 - Khamphou Khouthong v. USDC-CAFR
August 16, 2016
PDF | More
FILED OPINION (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CARLOS T. BEA) We have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). We DENY the petitions for the writ of mandamus because the petitioners have other means to obtain their desired relief and because the district courts’ orders were not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. See id. (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 2010)). In addition, we GRANT the motion for leave to file an oversize reply brief, ECF No. 47-2 [9655891-2]; DENY the motion to strike, ECF No. 52 [9659719-2]; and DENY the motion for judicial notice, ECF No. 53 [9661985-2]. DENIED. Judge: DFO Authoring, FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [10088130] [15-71158, 15-71174, 15-71179, 15-71225]