ALD-096 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 19-1246

___________ In re: CHITA ALIPER IO; EMILE HERIVEAUX, Petitioners

___________________ _________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court fo r the District of New Jersey

(Related to Civ. Nos. 2- 16-cv-01008 & 2-18-cv-13148)

___________________ _________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 7, 2019 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ a nd BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 28, 2019)

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioners Chita Aliperio and Em ile Heriveaux seek a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to take various acti ons in their cases. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition.

* This disposition is not an op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Petitioners seek mandamus relief with resp ect to two actions they have instituted in the District Court. In the first action, the petitioners alleged that several defendants violated the Racketeer Influenc ed and Corrupt Organizations Ac t (RICO) in the course of assigning their mortgage, using it in credit-de fault-swap contracts, collecting payments on it, and instituting foreclosur e proceedings (hereafter, “the RICO action”). See D.C. Civ. A. No. 16-cv-1008. They requested en try of default, which the Clerk refused to enter because the defendants had “made an a ppearance and there are Motions to Dismiss pending.” June 16, 2016 text order. In Dece mber 2016, the District Court dismissed the complaint, and, after the Court denied the petitioners’ motion to vacate the judgment, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal to this Cour t. That appeal is currently pending. See C.A. No. 17-2393. In the second action, the petitioners allege d that several defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in their communi cations with the petitioners concerning their mortgage (hereafter, “the FDCPA action”). See D.C. Civ. A. No. 18-cv13148. The petitioners sought entry of default, which the Court denied, explaining that the defendants had filed their answer “shortly after the deadline to answer expired” and that “the Third Circuit has a preference for cases being decided on the merits.” January 15, 2019 text order. That action remain s ongoing in the District Court. The petitioners now seek a writ of mandamu s. They ask us to (a) strike the motions to dismiss and enter de fault in the RICO action, and (b) strike the answer, enter default, and then stay the FDCPA action.3 Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is gran ted in only extraordin ary cases. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, petitioners must esta blish that they have “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that they have a “clear a nd indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Ci r. 1996). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d at 378-79. Mandamus is not appropriate here. The petitioners can obtain appellate review of the orders denying entry of defa ult on direct appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”); see also Dimond Rigging Co. v. BD P Int’l, Inc., -- F.3d ---, 2019 WL 321862, at *9 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019) (“The district court dismissed [plaintiff’s] case , and therefore the denial of the motion of default is reviewable along with the order of dismissal.”). Likewise, to the extent that the petitioners allege that an im proper party filed a motion to dismiss in the RICO action, they actually have raised that argument in their brief in C.A. No. 17-2393, so it is unnecessary to re sort to mandamus. We will thus deny the mandamus petition. To the extent that anything in the petitioners’ mandamus petition can be construe d as a motion seeking additional relief, it is denied.