2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-25-2015 

# I n R e: Geor ge J ohnson , J r

.

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s F e br ua r y i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: Ge or g e J o hn s on, J r

. " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 219. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/219

### CLD

- 110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 4600

___________ IN RE: GEORGE JOHNSON, JR. , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2

- 13

- cv - 05542)

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

February 12, 2015 Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

( F iled : February 25, 201 5 )

_________ OPINION *



### _________ PER CURIAM Petitioner George Johnson , Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of mandamus , “pursuant to the denial of a Petition and Motion for Relief from Judgment . . . of Sept 21, 2014, Goldb erg, Judge at 13

- 5542 of the District Court [for the

* 

### This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

### 2

Eastern District of Pennsylvania] . . . at paper #34 of the district court docket . . . .” 1 

### He seeks an order from this Court “remanding” the matter to the District Court, and directing the District Co urt Clerk to enter default against the defendants in the underlying action. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances , where the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought
. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378

– 79 (3d Cir. 2005). It may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81, 124 S. Ct. 2576, 159 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2004))
. Petitioner has already filed an appeal from the District Court’s July 21, 2014 order in the underlying action , seeking substantially the same relief that he seeks in his mandamus petition
. That appeal is pending. See Johnson v. Rardin , C.A. No. 14

- 3398 (filed July 2 3 , 2014). Accordingly, we will deny the petition. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

1 

### Docket #34 in E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 13

- cv - 05542 is dated July 21, 2014, not September 21, 2014. Nothing has been entered on that docket since July 29, 2014.