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 6-1-2010 

# In Re: T imoth y Y oung 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 . 10-1331

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 anova . 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 ll anova 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 an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Timoth

y Y oun g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1221. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1221“S up erm ax fa ci l i t i es ar e m axim um -s ecuri t ypri sons w i t h h i gh l yres t ri ct i ve co nd i t i on s, 1 d e s ig n e d to s e g re g a te th e m o s t d a n g e ro u s p ri s o n e rs f ro m th e g e n e ra l p ri s o n p o p u la tio n .” W il k inso n v . A u sti n , 5 4 5 U . S . 2 0 9 , 2 1 3 (20 0 5 ). D L D - 197 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- 1331

___________ I n r e : T I M OT HY DOY L E YOUNG , Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus

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

M ay13, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N A N D H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 1, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T i m ot hyD oy l e Y oung i s hous ed i n t he cus t odyof the U ni t ed St at es B ur eau of P ri so n s (“B O P ”) a t th e “ su p erm ax ” f ac il ityin F loren ce , C o lorad o . H e is a “ three -stri k er” 1 u n d e r th e P riso n L iti g a tio n R e f o rm A c t (“ P L R A ” ) a n d is th u s b a rre d f ro m f ili n g c iv il sui t s i n form a p au

peris w i t houtfi r s tes t abl i s hi ng a thr eatof i m m i nentdangerof s er i ous p h y sic a l in

ju ry . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g ). Y o u n g f iled th e in sta n t m a n d a m u s p e tit io n toS im ila r c la im s w e re im p ro p e rl yra is e d b yY o u n g in o n e o f h is re c e n t h a b e a s p e titio n s . 2 S ee Y o u n g v . U n it ed S tat es, 20 1 0 W L 1 5 0 6 5 4 5 , * 2 (D . M ass. A p ri l 12 , 2 0 1 0 ). 2 have thi s C our tdecl ar e the fol l ow i ng l aw s uncons t i tut i onal : the “f i nal i t ycl aus e” of

the J udi ci al C onductA ctand thr ee pr ovi s i ons of the PL R A , i ncl udi ng i t s thr ee- s t r i kes pr ovi s i on. Y oung has al s o m oved forappoi nt m entof couns el , an “e m er gencyrul i ng” on

2 hi s m andamus pe t i t i on, and “a s t ayof the di s m i s s al of thi s cas e. ” M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n t he mostextr aor di naryof circu m stan ce s. S ee In re D ietD rug s P rod s. L iab. L it ig., 4 1 8 F . 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (3d C ir . 20 05 ). It s “tradi t i on al use . . . has bee n ‘t o co nfine an inferi or courtt o a law ful exerci se o f its p re sc rib e d ju risd ictio n o r to c o m p e l itto e x e rc ise its a u th o rityw h e n it i s its d u tyto d o s o .’” In re S c h o o l A s b e s to s L itig ., 9 7 7 F .2 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). A s s uch, t her e s houl d be s om e under l y i ng, w i t hi n- ci r cui tdi s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ng or or derbei ng chal l enged byt he mandam us pet i t i oner . See M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 76 -77 (3d C i r. 19 96 ) ( “A w ri tof m and am us . . . con st i tutes a proced ural m echan i sm thro u g h w h ich a co u rto f a p p ea ls r ev iew s a c are fu ll ycircu m scribe d an d d iscrete ca tego ry of di s t r i ctcour tor der s . ”) ; s ee a l s o C heneyv. U . S. D i s t . C our tforD i s t . of C ol um bi a, 542 U . S . 36 7, 38 0 (200 4) ( “T he co m m on -l aw w ri tof m and am us ag ainst a low er courtis codi fi ed at28 U . S. C . § 1651( a) . . . . ”) ( emphasi s added) ; R odger s v. U . S. St eel C orp. , 508 F. 2d 152, 161 ( 3d C i r . 1975) ( “The pow ert o i s s ue s uch w r i t s i n ai d of ourpot ent i al appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on compre hends ourr es pons i bi l i t yforthe or der l yand ef fi ci ent admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce w ith in th e c irc u it . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ).T h is s h o u ld n o t b e re a d a s a n in v itatio n , an d w e n o te th a t Y o u n g h a s w o rn o u t h is 3 w el come el s ew her e. See Y oung v. U ni t ed St at es , 88 Fed. C l . 283, 291 ( 2009) ( “The pl ai nt i ff c ont i nues t o i nundat e the court s of the U ni t ed St at es w i t h hi s r epet i t i ve fi l i ngs w ith o u t w a iti n g f

o r a re sp o n se f

ro m th e c o u rts. M r. Y o u n g h a s m a d e h im se lf a n e x a m p le of the type of pl ai nt i ff Congre s s w as tr y i ng t o addr es s w hen i tenac t ed the [PLR A ] . ”) H er e, t her e i s no under l y i ng di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ng oror deri n t hi s ci r cui tabout w hich Y ou ng com plai ns. In fact , i tdo es not appear that Y ou ng has eve rbeen a part yi n a leg a l ac tio n in th is c irc u it p rio r to th e m a n d a m u s p e tit io n a t issu e . W e h a v e n o p o w e r to 3 i s s ue w r i t s w i t h r es pectt o a mat t ernotw i t hi n ourj ur i s di ct i on. See R us s el l v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 3 0 8 F .2 d 7 8 , 7 9 (9 th C ir . 1 9 6 2 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyY oung’ s m andamus pe t i t i on. Y oung’ s pendi ng m ot i ons ar e deni ed.