Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 8
_______________________________
:
JOSEPH A. CHARLES, :
: Civil Action No.
Petitioner, : 07-3214 (RMB)
:
v. : OPINION
:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND :
SECURITY, :
:
Respondent. :
_______________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Page -1-
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 8
Page -2-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 8
judgment. Id. at 6.
after his current prison term and parole period expire (in
Page -3-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 8
DISCUSSION
Page -4-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 5 of 8
Dist. Court, 121 Fed. Appx. 443, 444 (3d Cir. 2005).
(1) The writ should be used only when the duty of the
officer to act is clearly established and plainly defined
and the obligation to act is peremptory. (2) The
presumption of validity attends official action, and the
burden of proof to the contrary is upon one who
challenges the action. (3) Courts have no general
supervisory powers over the executive branches or over
their officers, which may be invoked by writ of mandamus.
Interference of the courts with the performance of the
ordinary duties of the executive departments of the
government would be productive of nothing but mischief.
(4) When the performance of official duty requires an
interpretation of the law which governs that performance,
the interpretation placed by the officer upon the law
will not be interfered with, certainly, unless it is
clearly wrong and the official action arbitrary and
capricious. (5) For it is only in clear cases of
Page -5-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 6 of 8
Hammond v. Hull, 131 F.2d 23, 25 (App. D.C. 1942), cert. denied,
318 U.S. 777 (1943) (citations omitted).
Page -6-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 7 of 8
(same).
Since: (1) the DHS (and the agencies within it) have no
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 78 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating that
applications which are not “true,” i.e., not bona fide mandamus).
by the DHS (in the event the DHS institutes legitimate legal
Page -7-
Case 1:07-cv-03214-RMB-AMD Document 2 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 8 of 8
analysis.
respondent has a clear duty to perform. See Brow, 121 Fed. Appx.
denied.
CONCLUSION
denied.
Page -8-