2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-14-2011

In Re: Ayodele Oke

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2854

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: Ayodele Oke " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 873.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/873
DLD-234-E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2854

___________

IN RE: AYODELE OKE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2-11-cr-00321-001)

____________________________________

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

July 11, 2011

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 14, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On July 11, we denied Oke‟s mandamus petition and motion to stay state-court 

proceedings. See C.A. No. 11-2822. This current “emergency petition” is, in essence, 

more of the same. Oke argues that the Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction over 

him, and that it is “unlawfully” – in violation of the Eleventh Amendment – attempting to 

compel his appearance in relation to pending state criminal charges. 1 He asks us to 

 

1

See generally CP-46-CR-0003220-2011.
2

1) prohibit Judge William R. Carpenter from presiding over the criminal case, 2) restrain 

Judge Joseph A. Smyth from “proceeding in the pre-trial conference,” and 3) enjoin court 

administrators Michael Kehs and Denis Doe from “scheduling anymore [sic] appearances 

for the relator.” Oke does not ask that we compel the District Court to grant this relief, 

but rather requests it directly from this Court. He asserts that we have authority to 

undertake these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (the Anti-Injunction Act) and 5 U.S.C. 

§ 705 (relating to judicial review of agency decisions).

Again, Oke incorrectly assumes that his attempt to remove the criminal case to 

federal court rendered further proceedings of the state court invalid. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(c)(3). Regardless, to the extent that Oke‟s filing is cognizable in mandamus or 

prohibition,2 we will dismiss the petition. Under the All Writs Act, we may issue 

extraordinary writs only “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

“Traditionally, federal appellate courts have issued the writ of mandamus 

where a lower court has made an error of „jurisdictional‟ dimension. . . . In 

a variety of contexts, appellate courts have resorted to mandamus where the 

district court, in a case properly before it, took some action it was not 

empowered to take or declined to take some action required of it.”

United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 893–94 (3d Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). State 

courts are not “lower courts” from the perspective of a federal Court of Appeals, and 

principles of comity and federalism ensure that a federal court “ordinarily may not issue a 

 

2

“[M]odern courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic 

differences between” writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition. In re Sch. Asbestos 

Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990).
3

writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re 

Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981). We therefore lack the 

authority and jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.