Ii. [§ 7.5] Writ of Mandamus
Jurisdiction | Maryland |
II. [§ 7.5] WRIT OF MANDAMUS
John Smith owns a tract of unimproved land in Baltimore City, Maryland. He sought to obtain a permit to access the water and sewage services provided by the City. This access is required under municipal zoning law to construct a residence. He applied for the permit, complying with all criteria specified for the issuance of the permit. After his application was filed, the Mayor and City Council enacted an ordinance changing the criteria and providing that no access would be permitted unless the applicant's property was within 1,000 feet of the public road. Smith did not comply with this criterion. He insisted that this new enactment did not apply to him because the original criterion specified that the distance from the access to the public highway cannot be more than 1,500 feet. When the City refused to issue the permit, Smith instituted a Complaint for a writ of mandamus.
John Smith (hereinafter "Smith"), Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Ketanji P. Walker and Walker & Walker, P.A., sues the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Defendant, and states:
1. Plaintiff Smith, pursuant to Md. Rule 15-701, brings this civil action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Defendant Mayor & City Council of Baltimore to perform its statutory duties.
2. Plaintiff Smith is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland. He is the owner of an unimproved tract of land in Baltimore City, situated on Vale Road. The land was subdivided in accordance with a recorded plat, and is known as "Rocky Ridge."
3. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore is a body corporate and politic and a chartered municipal corporation under Maryland Code Annotated Articles 23A and 23B, which is responsible for the issuance of water and sewer permits pursuant to its ordinance codified as Article 1, § 145 of the Baltimore City Code.
4. On December 1, 2020, Defendant established a five-year water and sewer plan. This plan provided specific criteria for the granting of permits to applicants for purposes of accessing the City's water and sewer services.
5. Criterion X2643 of the aforesaid plan provided that applicants must demonstrate that the distance between a public highway and the designated site for access was a distance of no greater than fifteen hundred (1,500) feet.
6. On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application to the appropriate City agency to obtain a permit to establish an access for Rocky Ridge to the City's water and sewer services.
7. One day after Plaintiff filed his application, Defendant changed the criterion by requiring the distance between the access and the public road to be within one thousand (1,000) feet.
8. Defendant refused to grant Plaintiff's application, claiming that the sewage capacity of the City was becoming overburdened. Defendant further attempted to justify its claim by changing the criteria and reducing the maximum permitted distance between access and public highway.
9. Plaintiff disputed the position of Defendant by inviting attention to the City's own forecast of applications, which shows that very few applications were filed and expected to be filed for sewage access in the immediate area of Rocky Ridge.
10. Defendant has a clear duty to review, consider, and grant the application of Plaintiff to access the water and sewage services of the City.
11. Plaintiff has a plain and clear right to have his application approved because he has satisfied all requirements to obtain such a permit under the City's five-year water and sewer plan.
12. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy by which he can obtain his right to the permit and thus obtain the right to construct a residence on his property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that a Writ of Mandamus be issued by this Court ordering Defendant to approve said application for sewer and water access.
I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing Complaint are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
__________
John Smith
Plaintiff
__________
Ketanji P. Walker
AIS No. 0123456789
Walker & Walker, P.A.
Wells Fargo Building
7 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: (410) 555-1234
Fax: (410) 555-1235
Email: KPWalker@WalkerLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Writs of mandamus and prohibition, as well as those of certiorari, quo warranto, and ne exeat regno, are ancient common law "prerogative or extraordinary writs." See In re Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 312 Md. 280, 539 A.2d 664 (1988); Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Potomac River Ass'n, 113 Md. App. 580, 688 A.2d 515 (1997). Since the writs are extraordinary, the granting of the writ rests with the discretion of the court. See Philip Morris, Inc. v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689, 752 A.2d 200 (2000); Ipes v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 224 Md. 180, 167 A.2d 337 (1961); Bozeman v. Disability Review Bd. of Prince George's Cty. Police Pension Plan, 126 Md. App. 1, 727 A.2d 384 (1999); Weidig v. Tabler, 81 Md. App. 488, 568 A.2d 868, vacated sub nom. Kies v. Tabler, 321 Md. 1, 580 A.2d 701 (1990).
Common law mandamus was concisely described by Judge Booth, writing for the Court of Appeals, in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. ProVen Mgmt., Inc.:
"It is well established that common law mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is generally used to compel inferior tribunals, public officials or administrative agencies to perform their function, or perform some particular duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial