2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-17-2015

In Re: Joseph Higgins

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This September 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 2015 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: Joseph Higgins" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 992.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/992
BLD-335 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2500

___________

IN RE: JOSEPH W. HIGGINS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 11-cv-01821)

____________________________________

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

September 11, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 17, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Joseph W. Higgins has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the Court to 

overturn an order entered in a federal civil proceeding in New Jersey. See Higgins v. 

Bernstein, D.N.J. Civ. No. 11-cv-01821. That case involved Higgins’s allegations “that 

he is the victim of a conspiracy of ‘unlawful, intentional, willful and evil misconduct of 

retaliation” and invidious discrimination at the hands of several state court judges, state 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

court employees, and a United States District Judge.” See In re: Higgins, C.A. No. 12-

3021 (Aug. 28, 2012) (opinion denying a prior mandamus petition). In the prior 

mandamus petition, Higgins sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to 

rule on his Motion for Default Judgment. This Court denied the petition, but expressed 

“confiden[ce] that the District Court will issue a ruling on Higgins’s motion in due 

course.” The District Court denied Higgins’s motion for default judgment on October 3, 

2012.

Higgins argues in the current petition that the defendants in the civil action never 

answered his complaint in their personal capacities, and he once again asks this Court to 

direct the district court to enter default judgment and direct the defendants “to pay the 

petitioner the sum of 5 Million Dollar a piece in their personal capacity.” As Higgins 

recognizes, “[t]he time for all parties to object or appeal have long since expired.” 

Mandamus Petition at 1. Higgins’s petition for a writ of mandamus does not meet the 

requirements for this extraordinary relief.1 

The writ of mandamus “is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and its use is 

discouraged.” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain 

the desired relief and that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141. And 

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 

(3d Cir. 1998). Higgins had “adequate means to attain the relief he desire[d]” through a 

 

1 And Higgins’s supplement is of no help; it is a delusional statement about his belief that 

a state court judge murdered two children involved in a family court proceeding.
3

direct appeal. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). His failure to file a 

timely appeal does not equate to a lack of available means to attain relief. 

We will thus deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.