2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-29-2011

In Re: Scott Travaline

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3232

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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: Scott Travaline " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 443.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/443
1

*AMENDED CLD-283 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3232

___________

IN RE: SCOTT JOHN TRAVALINE,

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. Civ. No. 10-cv-01653)

____________________________________

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

September 8, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, 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 complaint,1alleging 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 relief.2 C.A. No. 10-4591. On 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 Diet 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 indisputable, 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 District 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 

petition 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.”