In Re United States

A court is not categorically precluded from expressing the merits of the mandamus when issuance would no longer be effective.

The United States filed a petition for a writ of mandamus because a District Judge restricted the pro hac vice admission of multiple government attorneys. Upon filing the petition, the District Judge reversed his denial and admitted the out of state attorneys. The United States claims that the case is not moot because it can recur; the judge may do it again because of his previous history with this matter. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that they are not precluded from opinioning on the merits of a mandamus petition when the issuance would not be effective. The panel considered five factors to evaluate if the writ was appropriate when filed, based on precedent. Bauman v U.S. District. These five factors included: (1) if the party has any other way to get relief, (2) whether the petitioning party’s case would be damaged, prejudiced, or not correctable if the event of an appeal, (3) if, as a matter of law, the order was erroneous, (4) if the district court’s error frequent error, and (5) if, on a first impression, the district court found and raised new issues or problems. When looking at those factors, the panel concluded that the denial was arbitrary and outside the court’s discretion. However, the panel declined to issue a formal writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED.