Opinion
23-1244
10-16-2023
In re: EDGAR NELSON PITTS, Petitioner.
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01422-RM-KLM) (D. Colo.)
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
In 2020, Edgar Nelson Pitts sued the Bureau of Prisons and several prison officials, claiming they violated his constitutional rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case was dismissed pursuant to the parties' stipulation of dismissal. Mr. Pitts moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), to void the settlement agreement and reopen the case. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Pitts then moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. The district court denied that motion as well. Mr. Pitts appealed the denial of reconsideration, and this court affirmed. See Pitts v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 22-1176, 2023 WL 2945855, at *3 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023).
After the mandate issued, Mr. Pitts filed another Rule 60(b) motion seeking to reopen the case, and a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. He alleged that the defendants had violated the settlement agreement, and although the stipulation of dismissal did not provide for the district court's retention of jurisdiction after dismissal to enforce the agreement, he asked the court to find that they had violated the agreement and to require them to comply. The court entered a minute order stating that the case remained closed and striking both motions.
This matter is before us on Mr. Pitts' pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Because Mr. Pitts represents himself, we construe his petition liberally. See Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). The petition challenges the order striking his post-mandate filings and, liberally construed, seeks a writ directing the district court to enforce the parties' settlement agreement.
"[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances." In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Three conditions must be met before a writ of mandamus may issue." Id. at 1187. First, the petitioner must show he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires," id. (internal quotation marks omitted), such as filing a new lawsuit based on the alleged violations. Second, the petitioner must show that his "right to the writ is clear and indisputable." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the "court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under this test, "we will grant a writ only when the district court has acted wholly without jurisdiction or so clearly abused its discretion as to constitute usurpation of power." Id. at 1186 (internal quotation marks omitted). "It is not appropriate to issue a writ when the most that could be claimed is that the district court[] . . . erred in ruling on matters within [its] jurisdiction," id. at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Pitts has not made the required showing, and we are not satisfied that a writ is appropriate under the circumstances presented here. Accordingly, we deny the petition. We grant Mr. Pitts' motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees.