PART V — JURISDICTION AND COMMENCEMENT
Rule 54. Mandamus and prohibition
Mandamus prerequisites
In addition to Rule 53, mandamus against a State official requires the petitioner to establish:
a clear entitlement to relief;
a clearly written, nondiscretionary duty the respondent is required to execute;
relief that redresses the petitioner’s personal injury rather than a generalized institutional grievance; and
a concrete, particular, personal injury caused by failure to execute the duty.
Appellate-aid limitation
Even when subdivision (a) is satisfied, the Supreme Court may issue mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction unless a separate law expressly grants original jurisdiction. A mandamus claim outside that limitation belongs in a court of competent original jurisdiction.
Prohibition
A writ of prohibition requires a clear showing that:
a lower tribunal is about to exercise jurisdiction it does not possess or commit an act that cannot be remedied through ordinary review;
the threatened action is imminent;
no adequate remedy exists; and
the writ is in aid of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction.
Required parties and materials
The petition must name the official or tribunal by office, identify the real parties in interest, and append the challenged order or record. The judicial officer is a respondent for purposes of the writ but ordinarily need not advocate on the merits unless ordered.
Discretionary acts
Mandamus does not control how an official exercises lawful discretion, compel a particular outcome where law leaves choice, or replace an appeal from an alleged abuse of discretion.