2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-19-2010 

# In Re: Roy D a

vi s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1332

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Ro y D a

vi s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1483. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/14831

HLD- 1 0 8 ( M a r c h 2 0 1 0 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________________ N o. 10- 1332

________________ IN R E : R O Y S T E V E D A V IS , Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on fora W r i tof M andamus fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 08- cv- 01272)

_____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

M ar ch 31, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie f

J u d g e , W E IS a n d G A R T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s . O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 19, 2010

__________ OP I NI ON

____________ P E R C U R I A M.

R oySt eve D avi s , a fe der al i nm at e, has fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus i n w hi ch he a s ks t hi s C our tt o compel t he H onor abl e Thom as I . V anas ki e of t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c tCo u r tf o rt h e M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a , a n d W a r d e n T. R. S n ieze k at F C I-Sc h u y lkil l i n P en n sy lvan ia, to “p erf o rm their of

ficial du ti es.” P tn. at1 . In2

par t i cul ar , D avi s as ks t hatw e di r ectJ udge V anas ki e and W ar den Sni eze k t o “expung[ e] al l di s ci pl i naryhear i ngs and r es t or [e] al l good conductt i m e t aken a teac h hear i ng[] r egar di ng I nci dentR epor t1720977. ” I d. at3. W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on.

A s a th re sh o ld m a tter, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to g ra n t th e re lief re q u e ste d w ith r e s p e c tt o W a r d e n S n i e z e k . Da v i s s t y l e s h i s ma n d a mu s p e t i t i o n a s f i l e d u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1361, butt hatpr ovi s i on confe r s or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on onl yupon dis tr i ct c o u rts “ to c o mp e l a n o f

f i c e ro re mp l o y e e o f

t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s o ra n ya g e n c yt h e r e o f t o p e r f o r m a dut yow ed t o t he pl ai nt i ff. ” 28 U . S. C . § 1361. T hi s C our tl acks or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on over a pet i t i on t o compel act i on byW ar den Sni eze k.

W hil e D avis has i nv ok ed o nly§ 1 36 1, w e w i l l l i beral l ycon strue hi s pro se pet i t i on as fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 1651 i ns ofaras he s eeks t o compel act i on byt he D i s t r i ctJ udge. Sect i on 1651 confe r s j ur i s di ct i on on t hi s C our tt o i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus “ i n ai d of” ourj ur i s di ct i on. 28 U . S. C . § 1651( a) . T he di s t r i ctcour tdocket r efl ect s t hatD avi s fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o chal l enge a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng t hatr es ul t ed i n a r ecomm endat i on t hathe be tr ans ferr ed fr om FC I - Schuy l ki l l t o anotherfac i l i t y . O n Sept ember22, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce on the gr ound t hatD avi s had fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . T hi s C our tdi s m i s s ed D avi s ’ s appea l of that rul i ng beca us e he f

ai l ed t o payt he appe l l at e fi l i ng fee . ( C . A . N o. 09- 4278, or derent er ed F e b ru a ry 1 , 2 0 1 0 .)G i ven thatt he under l y i ng m at t eri n t he D i s t r i ctC our thas been di s m i s s ed,

t her e i s no pendi ng act i on overw hi ch a w r i tof m andamus mi ghtai d ourj ur i s di ct i on. See U n it ed S tat es v . C h ri sti an , 6 6 0 F . 2 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) (ex p lai n ing that, “[ b ]ef o re ent er t ai ni ng” a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus, “w e musti dent i fya j ur i s di ct i on t hatt he iss u a n c e o f

th e w rit m ig h t as sis t”) . F u rth e r, m a n d a m u s is n o t a s u b stitu te f o r a n a p p e a l, I n r e K ens i ngt on I nt ern. L t d. , 353 F. 3d 211, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and thus D avi s cannot u s e th is p ro c e e d in g to s e e k re v ie w o f is s u e s th a t h e f

a ile d to p u rs u e th ro u g h a n a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , t he r eques tt o compel act i on fr om t he D i s t r i ctJ udge mustbe deni ed.

F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s .

3