IN RE EARL CHRISTIAN, PETITIONER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the writ of mandamus because the administrative appeal is now moot and review is properly in federal court.
A Civil Service employee was fired and commenced an administrative appeal. He then sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision in that pending appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a Civil Service employee, was fired on July 7, 1978. On July 8, 1978, he commenced an administrative proceeding [hereinafter the administrative appeal] to review that action. The instant petition for a writ of mandamus is to compel a decision in the administrative appeal pending since July 8, 1978.
Because the administrative appeal was pending at the time the 1978 Service Reform Act became effective, January 11, 1979, review of the administrative appeal in the instant case would be in the federal district court rather than this Court. See S.Rep.No. 95-969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 63, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 2723, 2785. Since the petitioner has neither cited authority nor otherwise shown why he first sought relief from this Court, it would be inappropriate for us to grant the writ. Moreover, since the petition was filed, an appropriate government agency has heard and decided the petitioner’s case. The issue raised in this proceeding is moot.1 The writ is denied.
It is so ordered.
. In addition, part of the petitioner’s claim is racial discrimination. Thus, it appears he could bring suit at this time in federal district court for failure of the government agencies to take action on the complaint within 180 days, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Since he thereby has an adequate remedy at law, issuance of writ would be inappropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 613 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1980)
-
B. C. Recreational Indus. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Boston, 639 F.2d 828 (1st Cir. 1981)
-
Eulice L. Phillips v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 620 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence