Price v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC
| Florida Middle District Court | |
| Judge: | John E Steele |
| Referred: | Mac R Mccoy |
| Case #: | 2:19-cv-00655 |
| Nature of Suit | 470 Other Statutes - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| Cause | 28:1441 Notice of Removal |
| Case Filed: | Sep 06, 2019 |
| Terminated: | Apr 26, 2021 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Mar 04, 2020 3:59 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Gregory C. Price
1057 Bay Harbor Drive
Englewood, FL 34224 |
| Docket last updated: 04/24/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Tuesday, June 28, 2022 | ||
| 55 | 55
appeal
USCA Mandate
Tue 06/28 2:13 PM
MANDATE of USCA as to51 Notice of Appeal filed by Gregory C. Price Issued as Mandate: 06/28/2022 ORDER: Gregory Price, a private citizen proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus arising from his civil proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Price seeks action by this Court to (1) compel the defendant in his civil case to obey the law; (2) uphold his right to a trial by a jury; (3) try the facts of his tort claim, allow him to present supplemental evidence, and assess damages against the defendant; and (4) refer the defendant's attorneys to law enforcement for suborning perjury. Mandamus is available only in drastic situations, when no other adequate means are available to remedy a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion. United States v. Shalhoub, 855 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2017); Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 1997). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal or to control decisions of the district court in discretionary matters. Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1004. A writ of mandamus "may issue only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so." Shalhoub, 855 F.3d at 1263 (quotation marks omitted). Where an alternative remedy exists, even if it is unlikely to provide relief, mandamus relief is not proper. See Lifestar Ambulance Svc., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir. 2004). This Court has jurisdiction to review an appeal from a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review all preceding non-final orders. Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965 F.3d 1222, 1229 (11th Cir. 2020). Here, Price is not entitled to mandamus relief. His request that we compel the defendant in his civil case to obey the law is not cognizable in mandamus, as we may only compel an inferior court to an exercise of its authority, not order private entities to act. See Shalhoub, 855 F.3d at 1263. Similarly, Price's requests that we uphold his right to trial by jury, try the facts of his claim, allow him to present supplemental evidence, assess damages against the defendant, and refer the defendant's attorneys to law enforcement, are not cognizable in mandamus because we may only compel an inferior court to an exercise of its authority, not act ourself. See id. Finally, to the extent that Price asks us to reverse the district court's order dismissing his complaint, or asserts any other errors by the district court, Price had, and exercised, the adequate alternative remedy of filing an appeal to this Court. Shalhoub, 855 F.3d at 1259; Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1004; Corley, 965 F.3d at 1229; 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That his appeal was not successful does not render it an "inadequate" alternative remedy for mandamus purposes. See Lifestar, 365 F.3d at 1298. Accordingly, Price's mandamus petition is hereby DENIED. USCA number: 22-11586 E. (JK) |
|