[Ed. – The consensus on this seems to be that the appeals court is not amused. The question to my mind will be whether the response from Sullivan appears to be written by a team from the firm of his newly appointed amicus curiae (i.e., Debevoise & Plimpton) – or perhaps by a team from Perkins Coie. Sullivan really can’t possibly have his own reasons for wanting to drag this case out and keep Flynn dangling.]
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered Judge Sullivan to respond within ten days to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn. Earlier this week, Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that extraordinary writ, asking the appellate court to instruct Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.
It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. …
The D.C. Circuit’s order that Judge Sullivan must respond cites Rule 48(a), along with Fokker.