2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2010 

# In Re: Nichol a s Quee n P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1275

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Nicho l as Que e n " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1083. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1083D L D - 231 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1275

___________ I N R E : NI CH OL AS QUE E N, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00516)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J une 24, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

________ P E R C UR I AM N i chol as Q ueen f

i l ed thi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus, cl ai m i ng t hatt he U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia w ro n g f

u llyc o n tin u e s to c o l l e c ta t o t a l o f

$ 2 1 5 5 i n p a s td u e f

i l i n g f e e s f r o m h i s p r i s o n t ru s ta c c o u n tf u n d . He cl ai m s t hateven though he pr es ent ed the D i s t r i ctC our tw i t h ful l paym enti n t he amountQ ueen f i l ed a “ N ot i ce of

t ender/ not i ce of

di s char ge of de btand di s char ge of 1 obl i gat i on undert he PL R A , ” as s er t i ng t hatt he documentfor$2500 w as l egal t ender undert he U ni form C om m er ci al C ode. Q ueen a l l eges t hati tw as J udge C onaboy , t he named defe ndanti n hi s m ot i on for 2 re tu rn o f p ro p e rty , w h o d e n ied th e m o tio n . H e c o m p lain s th a t Ju d g e C o n a b o ysh o u ld have di s qual i fi ed hi m s el f under28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es , how ever , t hat Ju d g e W ill iam N e a lo n c o n sid e re d th e m o tio n a n d d e n ied it. 2 of $2500, t he D i s t r i ctC our thas notdi s char ged the debt . I n A pr i l 2009, Q ueen f i l ed a 1 “mot i on forr etur n of pr oper t y , ” r eques t i ng t he r etur n of the moneypai d, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. T hus , Q ueen c ont ends , he has no adequa t e ava i l abl e r emedyor 2 ot herm eans t o obt ai n r el i ef. H e as s er t s t hathe has an undi s put ed r i ghtt o m andamus, and h e s e e k s a n o rd e r c o m p e llin g th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to re tu rn th e $ 2 5 0 0 h e p a id . M andamus i s an appr opr i at e r emedyi n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s onl y . K errv. U . S. D i s t . C our tforN . D i s t . of C al . , 426 U . S. 394, 402 ( 1976) ; Spor ck v. Pei l , 759 F. 2d 312, 314 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . A pet i t i onerm us tor di nar i l yhave no otherm eans t o obt ai n t he d e s ir e d re lie f

, a n d h e m u s t s h o w a “ c le a r a n d in d is p u ta b le ” ri g h t to is s u a n c e o f th e w ri t. In re S ch . A sb esto s L it ig., 9 7 7 F . 2 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t m a n d a m u s re lief is n o t ap p ro p ria te b e c a u se Q u e e n h a s f a iled to s how a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . H i s cl ai m t hathe t ender ed p a ym e n t o f

$ 2 5 0 0 b ysu b m itt in g a “ n o tice o f ten d e r” is m e ritles s. H is f ili n g f e e d e b t is still o u tsta n d in g . M o re o v e r, Q u e e n h a s f a iled to sh o w th a t h e h a s n o o th e r m e a n s to obt ai n r el i ef. W es t i nghous e El ec. C orp. v. R epubl i c of Phi l . , 951 F. 2d 1414, 1422 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( “[M ] andamus mustnotbe us ed as a mer e s ubs t i tut e forappea l . ”) . H er e,3

Q ueen’ s m ot i on forr etur n of pr oper t ys oughtt he s ame r el i ef i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hathe r eques t s i n hi s m andamus pe t i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, and Q ueen appea l ed. See Q ueen v. C onaboy , C . A . N o. 09- 2418. B yor derdat ed A ugus t26, 2009, th e C ler k o f

th e C o u rt d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l b e c a u se Q u e e n f a iled to p a yth e re q u isite fi l i ng fee as di r ect ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyQ ueen’ s pet i t i on form andamus