2011 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 Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-29-2011 

# I n R e: S cott T

r a v aline

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-3232

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_2011

Thi s de c i sion 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 Appe 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 2011 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: S c ott T

r a v al ine " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 443. 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_2011/4431



### *AMENDED CLD
- 283 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 3232

___________ IN RE: SCOTT JOHN TRAVALINE, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mand amus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

( Related to E .D. Pa. Civ. No. 10

- cv
- 01 653 )

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

September 8, 2011 Before: RENDELL, FUEN TES, and SMITH , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 29, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Scott John Travaline seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to commence a trial. We will deny the petition. Travaline filed a second amended compl aint, 1 

### alleging numerous constitutional violations and other offenses. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and we affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that Travaline’s complaint

1 Travaline’s original and first amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice.2



### failed to state a plausible claim for re lief. 2 

### C.A. No. 10

- 4591. O n August 23, 2011,
Travaline filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District
Court to commence trial

. 3 

### Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
circumstances. In re Di et Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear
and indi sputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). Travaline has not demonstrated that he has a clear right to the writ of mandamus.
The Dist rict Court dismissed his complaint and we affirmed. Therefore, there is no pending decision for which mandamus would be appropriate. As we previously informed Travaline, if he wishes to pursue further review in this case, he may do so by filing a petitio n for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, we will deny Travaline ’s mandamus petition and “motion for summary judgment.

2 We noted that Travaline’s complaint consisted of largely unintelligible ramblings.

3 

### Because respondents did not respond to Travaline’s petition for writ of mandamus, Travaline then filed a “motion for summary judgment.”