BLD
- 002 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 2880

___________ IN RE: ERNEST WOODALL, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________ ________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

October 2, 2014 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 7, 2014 )

_________________ OPINION

_________________ PE R CURIAM Ernest Woodall, a state prisoner , filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to permit him to pay for postage for his legal mail using funds from his inmate account. 1 Woodall alleges that the DOC’s current policy regarding legal mail has worked to prohibit him from filing

1 He also asks us to appoin t counsel.2

documents in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
and in this Court. 2 We will deny the petition for writ of mand amus. Our authority to entertain a mandamus petition derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Traditionally, it may be “used . . . only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdi ction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do
so.’” Id. (quoting Will v. United States , 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967)). Woodall does not allege an action or omission by a United States District Court
within this Circuit over which w e might exercise our authority by way of mandamus. Cf.
United States v. Christian , 660 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir. 1981) (explaining that the “focal question” for a federal appellate court is whether an action of a district court impedes appellate jurisdiction granted in some other provision of law). Nor does he allege an action or omission by a federal officer, employee, or agency over which a United States District Court would have mandamus jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel

2 Specifically, Woodall alleges that he has been unable to file documents in connection with a federal habeas petition that he filed in the District Court and a related appeal before us. However, the District Court has already denied Woodall ’s petition, see Woodall v. Walsh , W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 11

- cv - 00607 (order entered November 21, 2013),3

an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”) Instead, Woodall asks us to exercise our mandamus j urisdiction to
direct a state agency to perform its duties in accordance with his wishes. We do not have the authority to grant that request. Cf. In re Wolenski , 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (explaining that a district court “had no juri sdiction” to “issue a writ of mandamus compelling action by a state official”). Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We also deny Woodall’s request for appointment of counsel.

and we have resolved his appeal, see C.A. No. 13

- 4721 (order entered June 6, 2014).