Case Information: 05-OA-0052 | |||
Short Caption: | EDNA MCMANUS VS DC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL | Classification: | Original Jurisdiction - Original Actions - Mandamus |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | Filed Date: | 11/23/2005 | |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 11/23/2005 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: |
Party Information | ||||||||||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | |||||||
Petitioner | Edna Mcmanus | N |
| |||||||||
Respondent | District of Columbia Department of Corrections | N |
| |||||||||
Respondent | District of Columbia Office of Risk Management | N |
|
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
11/23/2005 | PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (RECVD ONLY) (WITH EXHIBITS) | Denied | ||
11/23/2005 | PETITIONER'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS | |||
11/30/2005 | TMC - (LODGED) petition for writ of mandaums - petitioner's motion to proceed IFP | |||
12/01/2005 | ORDER GRANT PTNR MO TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO THE EXTENT that petitioner may proceed without payment of costs in THIS MATTER ONLY. It is *****MORE***** | |||
12/01/2005 | FURTHER ORDERED that within 20 days from the date of this order that RESPONDENTS SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted. (SCGLNW) | |||
12/22/2005 | RESP MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE for 20 days (no oppo) | |||
12/22/2005 | TMC - (LODGED) petition for writ of mandamus - D.C.'s motion for extension of time to respond - D.C.'s (SECOND) motion for extension of time to respond - letter from petitioner | |||
01/10/2006 | LETTER -from pet. to Mr. Pinkson dated 1/10/06 CONSTRUED as a MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE PETITION LW | |||
01/10/2006 | RESP MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE to 12/1/05 order | |||
01/13/2006 | RECEIVED - Respondents' Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus | |||
01/19/2006 | PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY in support of petition for writ of mandamus 10 days no reply filed with motion | |||
01/24/2006 | On consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus, this court's order directing a response, the respondents' motions for extensions of time, the lodged response, petitioner's January 10, 2006, letter to the Clerk of the Court, which we construe as a motion to supplement the petition, and petitioner's motion for leave to reply, it is ORDERED that the MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME are GRANTED and the Clerk shall file the lodged response. It is *****MORE***** | |||
01/24/2006 | FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT IS GRANTED and the Clerk shall file the materials attached to the January 10, 2006, letter as a supplement to the petition for writ of mandamus. It is *****MORE***** | |||
01/24/2006 | FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY is GRANTED and petitioner shall submit her reply within 10 days from the date of this order. (SCGLKG) | |||
01/24/2006 | RESPONDENT'S ANSWER/RESPONSE to the petition | |||
01/24/2006 | MISCELLANEOUS - SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION (by: petitioner) | |||
02/03/2006 | PETITIONER'S ANSWER/RESPONSE in support of pet for writ of mandamus. w/exhibits in support of. | |||
02/07/2006 | TMC - petition for writ of mandamus - response - reply | |||
02/09/2006 | Filed | OUTCOME/DISPOSITION - Outcome-Disposition | ||
02/09/2006 | ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS The petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to this extraordinary relief, nor shown that she has no alternate means of relief. See Banov v. Kennedy, 694 A.2d 850 (D.C. 1996) the denial of this petition is without prejudice to renewal in the event petitioner is unable - after conferring with the District and making specific requests - to secure prompt payment of the remaining medical expenses of her left wrist and the cost of living adjustment. (SCGLKG) |