2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-27-2014

In Re: Claude Townsend

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-3368

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Claude Townsend" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 892.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/892
1

BLD-359 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3368

___________

IN RE: CLAUDE TOWNSEND,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-02158)

____________________________________

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

August 14, 2014

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Opinion filed: August 27, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On January 15, 2014, we issued a judgment vacating the District Court’s order 

affirming the denial of Social Security benefits to petitioner Claude Townsend, and 

directing the District Court to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security 

for further proceedings. See Townsend v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

553 F. App’x 166 (3d Cir. 2014). In lieu of a mandate, a certified copy of the judgment 

was filed on March 10, 2014. Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 79.4, the District Court notified the 
2

parties that if the mandate or judgment “directs a disposition other than an affirmance, the 

prevailing party shall submit an order implementing the mandate or judgment.” 

Accordingly, Townsend, as the prevailing party, was required to submit to the District 

Court a proposed order remanding the matter to the Commissioner. Apparently failing to 

understand the notice, Townsend failed to comply. Instead, on July 24, 2014, Townsend 

filed the instant mandamus petition, seeking an order directing the District Court to 

remand the matter to the Commissioner.

Our jurisdiction 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. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 

394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show 

both a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other adequate means to 

obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). 

Townsend clearly has an adequate means of obtaining the relief he desires. As the 

District Court noted in its “Judicial Notice” to Townsend filed on July 29, 2014, upon the 

filing of a proposed order by Townsend, the matter will be remanded to the 

Commissioner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.