DLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2246

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL FORREST,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 2-11-cv-07773)

____________________________________

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

June 14, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 25, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael Forrest has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United 

States Marshals to serve his complaint filed in the District Court and the District Court to 

issue various orders. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.

Forrest filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 

Act (RICO) by numerous defendants. Shortly thereafter, the court ordered him to pay the 

filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In lieu of a motion, 
2

Forrest filed an affidavit setting forth his lack of assets. He also filed motions in the 

District Court requesting an order directing the United States Marshal to effect service of 

the complaint on the defendants, a protective order, and a mandatory civil investigative 

demand. In addition, he filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The District Court 

has not yet acted on these motions. Instead, the District Court dismissed the complaint

without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, and allowed 

Forrest 21 days to amend his pleadings by filing a RICO case statement detailing his 

allegations in the form provided in the court’s order. In response, Forrest amended his 

pleadings on March 1, 2012. He subsequently filed an amended complaint on March 5, 

2012; another amended pleading related to the RICO case statement on March 22, 2012; 

and a “supplemental/amendatory complaint” on April 6, 2012. On May 8, 2012, Forrest 

filed his mandamus petition.

A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. See

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Typically, the petitioner must show 

that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief and demonstrate a 

clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of 

Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal. In 

re Kensington Intern. Ltd.

If a plaintiff is proceeding 

, 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). 

in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the District 

Court must order service by a United States Marshal or deputy marshal. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(c)(3). The District Court, however, has not yet given Forrest leave to proceed in
3

forma pauperis. We note that Forrest has had three actions or appeals dismissed as 

frivolous: Forrest v. Fulcomer, C.A. No. 88-1036 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 1988); Forrest v. 

Vaughn, 2:95-cv-05994-WD (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 1995); and Forrest v. Meyers, 3:01-cv02065-ARC-KH (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2001). Under § 1915(g), a prisoner who has three 

such dismissals may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time he files the complaint. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie

Moreover, because Forrest is a prisoner, the District Court must first screen the 

case under § 1915A to determine whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. The District 

Court performed this screening and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing 

Forrest 21 days to amend his pleadings. Forrest responded by filing amended pleadings, 

but the District Court has not yet ruled on those pleadings. 

, 

239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001). 

For all these reasons, Forrest cannot show a clear and indisputable right to an 

order directing service of the complaint or other relief sought, and we will deny the 

petition for mandamus.