Opinion
23-1378
02-21-2024
In re: JULIE CARPER, Petitioner.
D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00363-CNS-MEH, (D. Colo.)
Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Julie Carper brought a pro se action in federal district court in Colorado related to her 2009 divorce proceeding in Buffalo County, Nebraska, and subsequent arrest in 2018 for failure to pay child support. She sued the Court Clerk for Buffalo County, the County Attorney for Buffalo County, and the Nebraska Attorney General, all for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the action based on sovereign immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction. In appeal number 23-1005, this court affirmed the dismissal but remanded with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Consistent with this court's instruction, the district court entered an amended judgment in August 2023, dismissing the action without prejudice. Ms. Carper then filed objections to the entry of the amended judgment and a motion for reconsideration. The district court denied Ms. Carper's filings, explaining that the case had been dismissed without prejudice and was closed.
Ms. Carper then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. In it, she asserts the district court erred in dismissing her case. But she has already appealed the dismissal of her action, which this court affirmed with instruction that the dismissal be entered without prejudice. See Carper v. Peterson, No. 23-1005, 2023 WL 4485618, at *1, 5 (10th Cir. July 12, 2023). Ms. Carper also suggests this court erred in ruling on her appeal, but she did not file a petition for rehearing in this court or a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
We conclude Ms. Carper has failed to show her entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus. She has not demonstrated: (1) she has no other adequate remedy; (2) her right to the writ is clear and indisputable; or (3) that it would be appropriate under the circumstances for this court to exercise its discretion to grant her mandamus relief. See In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) (identifying three conditions that must be met for mandamus to issue). Accordingly, we deny her mandamus petition. We also deny her motion for leave to proceed in this matter without prepayment of costs or fees.