CLD-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 10-3954 

___________ 

IN RE: DANTE AMOR MORRIS, 

Petitioner 

____________________________________ 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(Related to D.C. Criminal Action No. 99-cr-00601) 

____________________________________ 

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P

October 21, 2010 

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 12, 2010) 

_________ 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

 Petitioner Dante Morris seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to 

grant his release from prison and to compel the prosecutor involved in his case to 

“enforce” certain unspecified obligations to him. We will deny the petition. 

 In March 2004, Morris pled guilty to thirty-six counts of possessing and uttering 

counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). The District Court sentenced 

Morris to eight months of imprisonment, a three year term of supervised release, a special 
2 

assessment of $3,600, and restitution in the amount of $29,135.17. After his release from 

prison, Morris failed to report to the U.S. Probation Office and, in August 2004, the 

District Court issued a warrant for his arrest. Morris remained a fugitive until he was 

arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service in January 2010. At a hearing that same month, the 

District Court revoked Morris’ supervised release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four 

months of imprisonment. Morris subsequently filed a notice of appeal in this Court 

arguing, inter alia, that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over his case. See United 

States v. Dante Morris, C.A. No. 10-2507. While that appeal was pending, he filed the 

instant mandamus petition. 

 Although the relief that Morris seeks in his petition is not entirely clear, he appears 

to request review of the same issue that he raised on direct appeal ─ that the District 

Court lacks jurisdiction over his case and, as a result, he should be released from prison. 

He also argues that the prosecutor involved in his case owes him certain “obligations,” 

but does not specify what those obligations are. 

 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner 

seeking mandamus must demonstrate 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, 130 S.Ct. 

705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus 
3 

cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 

1996). 

 Because Morris filed his mandamus petition while his direct appeal was still 

pending in this Court and mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, we will deny the 

petition.1

 1

 To the extent Morris also alleges that the prosecutor involved in his case 

 has failed to satisfy certain obligations, he has not set forth anything in 

 support of the assertion, let alone demonstrated that mandamus relief is 

 warranted.