CLD-107 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-3265

___________

IN RE: JAMES COPPEDGE

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to Civ. No. 1:21-cv-01412)

____________________________________

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

March 16, 2023

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 31, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

In 2011, the Delaware Superior Court granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank in a 

foreclosure action against Petitioner James Coppedge. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. 

Coppedge, No. CV K11L-02-042 RBY, 2015 WL 2209073, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. May 5, 

2015). Since then, Coppedge has repeatedly sought to challenge that judgment in both 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

state and federal court, to no avail.1 After the property at issue was sold at a sheriff’s sale 

and Coppedge was notified to vacate the premises, he filed a “Motion to Dismiss” in the 

District Court. That motion was docketed as a complaint and appeared to challenge the 

state court foreclosure judgment, as well as allege, inter alia, unlawful debt collection 

practices by defendants Orlans PC and SLS, LLC. Coppedge sought to vacate the state 

court judgment of foreclosure and void the transfer of the property. Relying in part on 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,2the District Court dismissed the action and denied 

Coppedge’s motions for reconsideration. Coppedge filed a notice of appeal,3 and he now 

seeks mandamus relief.4 

While his petition is far from a model of clarity, Coppedge appears to challenge 

the District Court’s dismissal by objecting to the application and existence of the RookerFeldman doctrine. In addition, Coppedge asks us to void the state court foreclosure 

1 See, inter alia, Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 35 A.3d 418 (Del. 2011) (table); 

Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 103 A.3d 514 (Del. 2014) (table); Coppedge v. 

Conway, Civ. Action No. 14-1477-GMS, 2015 WL 168839 (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2015); 

Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 176 A.3d 122 (Del. 2017) (table). 

2 See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462 (1983). 

3

 His appeal is pending at C.A. No. 22-2717.

4 Coppedge also filed a previous petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioning this Court to 

direct the District Court to vacate its order dismissing the action and denying his various 

motions. That petition was denied on January 6, 2023. See C.A. No. 22-2867.
3

judgment against him and to cancel the transfer of property that resulted from the 

sheriff’s sale.

“Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in 

extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of 

power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify the Court’s use of this remedy, 

Coppedge must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other 

adequate means to obtain the relief desired. Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 

89 (3d Cir. 1992). Coppedge has not met this burden. 

Notably, Coppedge’s mandamus petition once again appears to challenge the 

District Court’s decision (in fact, repeating issues that are the subject of his pending 

appeal), and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 

F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”). To 

the extent that Coppedge seeks to have this Court vacate the state court judgment of 

foreclosure and void the sale of the subject property, we deny his request as we are 

generally without authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court, or otherwise 

compel a state actor to perform a state action. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 

F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981); In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per 

curiam). 

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.