⚖ SoapBox law
ConstitutionTreatiesCasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsPrivacy lawAppeals & writsYour rightsDoctrinesSpirit of the LawsCase law as historyMaximsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Appeals & extraordinary writs · a pro-se ladder

If you lost and want to keep fighting, there is an order you have to climb — trial loss → appeal → reconsideration → state post-conviction → discretionary review → the Supreme Court → federal habeas → the extraordinary writs (mandamus and its cousins). Take them out of order and you can permanently burn a later option. Pick your jurisdiction, then walk the ladder. This is legal information and a fill-in-the-blank tool — not legal advice.

1 · Your jurisdiction

State, DC, or federal — and the court level. This drives which deadlines and rules apply.

The exhaustion ladder — climb it in order

✓ a step you have marked done · ⚠ a gated step whose earlier rungs are not marked done · steps are numbered in the order you must climb them.

1 Direct appeal
The direct appeal is the ordinary, first-as-of-right challenge to a final judgment. You ask a higher court to review the trial record for legal error — you generally do NOT get to add new evidence. It is the base of the ladder: almost everything above it assumes you took, or gave up, this step first.
Open this step →
2 Motion for reconsideration / new trial
A motion asking the SAME court that ruled to reconsider — for legal error, or a new trial (in a criminal case, often on newly discovered evidence). It is filed back in the trial court, not up the ladder.
Open this step →
3 State post-conviction / state habeas ⚠
A separate (collateral) proceeding in state court to raise things a direct appeal could not — most often ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or a constitutional violation that lives outside the trial record. Every state has its own vehicle (post-conviction relief, a state habeas petition, a "coram nobis"-style motion, etc.).
Open this step →
4 Discretionary review (state supreme court) ⚠
After an intermediate appellate court rules, you ask the state’s highest court to review it. In most states this is DISCRETIONARY — the court chooses whether to take the case (a petition for review / petition for discretionary review), it is not an appeal of right.
Open this step →
5 Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court ✓
A petition for a writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a final judgment of a state court of last resort (on a federal question) or a U.S. Court of Appeals. It is almost entirely discretionary — the Court grants a tiny fraction of petitions.
Open this step →
6 Federal habeas corpus (§ 2254 / § 2255) exhaust first⚠
A collateral attack in FEDERAL court on a conviction or sentence that violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. State prisoners use 28 U.S.C. § 2254; federal prisoners use a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. It is not a second appeal — the review is narrow and deferential to the state courts.
Open this step →
7 Writ of mandamus (§ 1361 / All Writs Act / state) last resort✓
An extraordinary writ ordering a government officer, court, or agency to perform a clear, non-discretionary DUTY it is refusing to do (or, in aid of jurisdiction, to stop exceeding its authority). In federal district court it rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1361; appellate mandamus rests on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. To compel a federal AGENCY specifically, the everyday vehicle is the APA: 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) lets a court "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."
Open this step →
8 Writ of coram nobis ⚠
An ancient writ to correct a fundamental error in a case where the sentence has already been served, so habeas (which requires being "in custody") is unavailable — for example, to clear a conviction still causing collateral consequences. In federal court it is recognized under the All Writs Act: United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954).
Open this step →
8 Writ of prohibition ⚠
Mandamus’s mirror image: instead of ordering a lower court/official to ACT, prohibition orders it to STOP — to refrain from exceeding its jurisdiction or authority. Like mandamus it is an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act (or a state equivalent).
Open this step →
8 Writ of quo warranto
A special writ challenging a person’s RIGHT to hold a public office or exercise a public franchise — "by what authority?" It is usually brought by a government attorney (an Attorney General or, federally, the U.S. Attorney), not a private individual, and it stands apart from the appeal/habeas ladder rather than on top of it.
Open this step →

✓ You have marked this step done. Undo

Writ of mandamus (§ 1361 / All Writs Act / state)

This step usually comes after earlier rungs

You have not marked these earlier steps complete: Direct appeal. This remedy is normally available only after them. Confirm you have exhausted the lower rungs (or that an exception applies) before relying on this one.

Mandamus is a last resort — after all appeals fail and an agency still refuses

Mandamus is reserved for a clear legal right, a clear non-discretionary duty the official refuses to perform, and NO other adequate remedy (an ordinary appeal is an adequate remedy, so it usually forecloses mandamus). To compel a federal AGENCY to act on a petition it is sitting on, courts apply the APA’s "unreasonably delayed" standard (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)) through the six TRAC factors — Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) — and § 706(1) reaches only a discrete action the agency is legally REQUIRED to take: Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). See the verified authorities below, including Olsen v. DEA.

What this is

An extraordinary writ ordering a government officer, court, or agency to perform a clear, non-discretionary DUTY it is refusing to do (or, in aid of jurisdiction, to stop exceeding its authority). In federal district court it rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1361; appellate mandamus rests on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. To compel a federal AGENCY specifically, the everyday vehicle is the APA: 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) lets a court "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."

Where it sits in the ladder

This is a LAST RESORT after all appeals fail and an agency or official still refuses. It is not a substitute for an appeal you could have taken. Courts reserve it for a clear right, a clear duty, and no other adequate remedy.

What "burning" this option means

"The writ goes by statute now": at common law mandamus was a royal prerogative writ a court issued on its own inherent power. Today a federal court’s power to issue it comes from STATUTE — § 1361, the All Writs Act (§ 1651), and, for agencies, the APA (§ 706(1)). So you must anchor the petition to the statute that grants the power AND to the specific duty the law imposes on the official — a vague "make them do the right thing" petition fails.

Who the respondents are

Name the official, court, or agency head that owes the duty (e.g. an agency's Administrator or Secretary, or the lower-court judge for appellate mandamus). For a federal agency, the head is the proper respondent; the U.S. Attorney and DOJ defend. State the office by title. See your state Attorney General for state officials, and Regulations to identify the agency.

Generate: Petition for extraordinary writ (mandamus / prohibition) — required fields

This is a fill-in-the-blank scaffold of the sections your document needs. It is AI-generated structure, not a completed filing and not legal advice — fill each field with your own case’s facts, or take it to an attorney or your court’s self-help center.

Court
The full name of the court you are filing in (e.g. "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit").
Parties
Who is who on appeal — Appellant/Petitioner vs. Appellee/Respondent (name the party bringing the challenge first).
Case / docket number
The lower court’s case number, and the new appellate number once assigned.
Caption
The formatted heading block: court, parties, case number, and the title of the document.
Title
e.g. "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" naming the official/court/agency as respondent.
The clear, non-discretionary duty
The specific legal duty the respondent is REQUIRED to perform (with the statute/rule that imposes it).
Your clear right & standing
Why you have a clear right to have that duty performed.
No other adequate remedy
Why an ordinary appeal or other remedy cannot fix the problem — the hardest element.
Statutory basis for the writ
The statute granting the power — 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the All Writs Act (§ 1651), and for agencies the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)).
Unreasonable delay (agency cases)
For an agency sitting on a petition, address the six TRAC factors (TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70).
Relief requested
The specific order you want the court to issue against the respondent.
Certificate of compliance
A signed statement that the brief meets the length/format limits (word or page count, font).
Certificate of service
A signed statement of the date and manner you served every other party with a copy.

Format & length rules

  • Federal appellate mandamus is governed by Fed. R. App. P. 21 (petition, service on the respondent judge, answer) Fed. R. App. P. 21
  • State mandamus/prohibition procedure and the proper court VARY — check your state’s rules — varies by state; confirm in your state’s rules

Governing statutes

District-court mandamus jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1361
look it up on SoapBox → · official (OLRC) → · Cornell LII →
The All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 1651
look it up on SoapBox → · official (OLRC) → · Cornell LII →
Compel agency action unlawfully withheld / unreasonably delayed 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
look it up on SoapBox → · official (OLRC) → · Cornell LII →

Governing authorities (verified)

Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
The petitioner had to seek a writ of mandamus to force the DEA to act on his petition, and the D.C. Circuit’s review sent the scheduling question back for the agency to address — the classic posture of using an extraordinary writ when an agency will not act. (The court’s ultimate ruling rejected the religious-use exemption on the merits; the mandamus point is the procedural lesson, not a holding that courts will always compel the DEA.)
Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v. FCC 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
The source of the six "TRAC factors" federal courts use to decide whether agency delay is "unreasonable" enough to compel action — the practical test behind a mandamus / § 706(1) petition against a stalling agency.
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 542 U.S. 55 (2004)
The Supreme Court held that a court can compel agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) only when the agency failed to take a DISCRETE action it was legally REQUIRED to take — the outer limit on "compel agency action" mandamus.

Cases on point (live · CourtListener)

Ex parte Nathan Joseph Suhy PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUSpublic domain
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2023-04-07 · Published · cited 0×
REL: April 7, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Midsouth Paving, Inc., and Christopher Nivert PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVILpublic domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2023-05-19 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: May 19, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 20
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Community Action Agency of Butte County v. Super. Ct.public domain
California Court of Appeal · 2022-05-27 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/27/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ---- THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF C093020 BUTTE COUNTY, (Super. Ct. No. 19CV02159)
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Madison County Department of Human Resources PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: In the matter of D.W.) (Madison Juvenile Court: JU-21-454.02)public domain
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2024-07-26 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: July 26, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Pesticide Action Network North America v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencypublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015-08-10 · Published · cited 37× · 798 F.3d 809; 2015 WL 4718867
OPINION Opinion by Judge McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: Although filibustering may be a venerable tradition in the United States Senate, it is frowned upon in administrative agencies tasked with protecting human health. Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council have been waiting for years for the United States Environmental P
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte City of Montgomery and Shelton Davis PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Madilyn Shuford v. City of Montgomery and Shelton Davis) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-900862).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-04-25 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: April 25, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM,
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jemmstone Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901800).public domain
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2024-10-04 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: October 4, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECI
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte John Cassimus PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jason T. Carrick and Ryan McAllister v. John Cassimus) (Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-900278).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-03-07 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: March 7, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jemmstone Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901800).public domain
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2024-08-23 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: August 23, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECI
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan Karen Bradford and Bradford Agency, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Larry Knight v. Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan Karen Bradford and Bradford Agency, LLC) (Clarke Circuit Court: CV-21-900014).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2024-05-10 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: May 10, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 20
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · company profile: Ex parte Foremost Insurance Company → · find the judge →
Ex parte John Cassimus PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jason T. Carrick and Ryan McAllister v. John Cassimus) (Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-900278).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-03-07 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: March 7, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte McKesson Corporation PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Fort Payne Hospital Corporation v. McKesson Corporation) (Conecuh Circuit Court: CV-21-900016).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2023-12-22 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: December 22, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Penn National Security Insurance Company PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: James Godwin v. Penn National Security Insurance Company) (Dallas Circuit Court: CV-24-900303).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-09-19 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: September 19, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIA
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte James E. Underwood and Braden Miles PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: John Long v. James E. Underwood and Braden Miles) (Walker Circuit Court: CV-19-900131).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-06-27 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: June 27, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte DuPont De Nemours, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.) (Etowah Circuit Court: CV-23-900332).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-04-04 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: April 4, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
State ex rel. Ames v. Regional Income Tax Agency Bd. of Trusteespublic domain
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2025-09-17 · Published · cited 1× · 2025 Ohio 4379
[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Regional Income Tax Agency Bd. of Trustees, 2025-Ohio-4379.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO EX REL., : BRIAN M. AMES, : Relator, : No. 115078
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Cade v. United States Environmental Protection Agencypublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2024-07-17 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM P. D. CADE, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 23-2227 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 5 : UNITED
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte Jason T. Carrick and Ryan McAllister PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jason T. Carrick and Ryan McAllister v. John Cassimus) (Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-900278).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-03-07 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: March 7, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte INV Performance Surfaces, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. Dupont De Nemours, Inc.) (Etowah Circuit Court: CV-23-900332).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-04-04 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: April 4, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Ex parte City of Orange Beach PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Sara Pearl Fahrmann, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Patrick Christopher Fahrmann v. City of Orange Beach) (Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-21-901218).public domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025-04-04 · Published · cited 0×
Rel: April 4, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →

Local ordinances — read them yourself

If your issue is a city or county ordinance, you can pull the actual text here and work through it yourself (or with an AI helper). These are finders and official code portals — we link where the codes live, not a guess at any one ordinance’s URL.

Find your city / county code

Municode Library
The largest host of municipal & county codes — pick your state, then your city/county to read its ordinances.
American Legal Publishing — Code Library
The other major municipal-code host; many mid-size and large cities publish here.
General Code / eCode360
A third national code host, common in the Northeast and Midwest.
Law Library of Congress — U.S. State & Local Government
Official Library of Congress research guide to finding state and local law.
Cornell LII — Municipal / local law
Plain-language background on how municipal ordinances work and where they sit under state law.

Example jurisdiction code portals

New York City — Administrative Code & Rules
Example of a city’s own code/rules portal (NYC).
City of Los Angeles — Municipal Code
Example of a large-city code hosted on a national platform.

AI-generated — not legal advice. Everything this tool produces is AI-generated legal INFORMATION and fill-in-the-blank structure. It is not legal advice, it is not a lawyer, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines, page limits, and procedures vary by court and change over time — verify every specific in your court’s own rules before you rely on it.

What to do with it: take the draft or notes to a licensed attorney, a legal-aid clinic, or your court’s self-help center; and file through the court’s official system. Most courts use an e-filing portal (federal courts: PACER/CM-ECF; many state courts have their own e-file site) and publish free pro-se packets and clerk help lines. When a deadline or a right is on the line, get a human lawyer — a federal-defender or public-defender office for criminal/habeas matters.

Frequently asked questions

What is the "exhaustion ladder" for appeals?

It is the fixed order you must challenge a court loss in: direct appeal, then a motion for reconsideration or new trial, then state post-conviction/state habeas, then discretionary review in the state supreme court, then certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, then federal habeas corpus, and only then the extraordinary writs like mandamus. Taking a step out of order can permanently forfeit ("burn") a later option.

Why can filing federal habeas too early hurt me?

Federal habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254 for state prisoners, § 2255 for federal) requires that you first exhaust state remedies (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)). Filing before you finish the state process can get the petition dismissed, the AEDPA one-year clock (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)) can run out, a claim can be procedurally defaulted, and a second petition needs the court of appeals’ permission. Get a lawyer or a federal-defender office before filing.

When is a writ of mandamus appropriate?

Mandamus is a last resort after ordinary appeals fail and an official or agency still refuses to perform a clear, non-discretionary duty, when no other adequate remedy exists. It rests on statute now — 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the All Writs Act (§ 1651), and for agencies the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)).

Does this tool give legal advice?

No. It is AI-generated legal information and a fill-in-the-blank scaffold — not legal advice and not a lawyer. Deadlines and rules vary by court and change; verify every specific in your court’s own rules, and take a draft to a licensed attorney, a legal-aid clinic, or your court’s self-help center.