Walker v. City of Cabot, Arkansas

Full title: DALE A. WALKER PLAINTIFF v. CITY OF CABOT, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Jun 9, 2008

CASE NO. 4:08CV00139 BSM (E.D. Ark. Jun. 9, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:08CV00139 BSM.

June 9, 2008

ORDER

BRIAN MILLER, District Judge

Plaintiff filed this Title VII action pro se alleging that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his age when he was laid off in June, 2007. He has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, stating that the layoff by Defendant in June, 2007 violated Ark. Code Ann. § 14-50-312. Plaintiff requests that the court declare the June 2007 layoff invalid and direct Defendant to pay Plaintiff's salary and benefits for the period from June 8, 2007 to April 30, 2008. Defendant has responded, stating that the writ of mandamus is not available to Plaintiff and asks that it be denied.

The writ of mandamus has been abolished. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b). See also Booker v. State of Arkansas, 380 F. 2d 240, 242 (8^th Cir. 1967) (abrogated on other grounds, Braden v. 30^th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)). Plaintiff can only seek relief through an appropriate action or motion under the Federal Rules.

There is no provision for the court to compel action by a municipal governmental entity through a mandamus action. See Cooks v. Hinrichs, 500 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1227 (D. S. D. 2007). A federal court has no general jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus where that is the only relief sought. Haggard v. State of Tennessee, 421 F. 2d 1384, 1386 (6^th Cir. 1970). Therefore, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Craigo v. Hey, 624 F. Supp. 414, 416 (S. D. W. Va. 1985) (sua sponte dismissal of mandamus application).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus (Doc. No. 16) is hereby denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.