2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-9-2015

In Re: Matthew Tucker

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

This March 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: Matthew Tucker" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 243.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/243
*AMENDED BLD-113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 14-4720 

___________ 

IN RE: MATTHEW TUCKER, 

 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. 13-cv-04417) 

____________________________________ 

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

February 12, 2015 

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: March 9, 2015) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

 Matthew Tucker, proceeding pro se, submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to 

compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on a motion 

for reconsideration he filed on April 17, 2014 (which he identifies as ECF No. 91). He 

also appears to request that we direct the Clerk of the District Court, William T. Walsh, 

 

*

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

constitute binding precedent. 
2 

to amend some of the docket entries in his District Court case, so that their language 

exactly mirrors the language he uses on his filings. For the reasons that follow, we will 

deny the petition. 

 On December 23, 2014, while Tucker’s mandamus petition was pending, the 

District Court denied the motion for reconsideration (citing ECF No. 91 in ECF No. 175). 

Accordingly, we will deny as moot Tucker’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the 

District Court to rule on it. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-

99 (3d Cir. 1996).1 

 To the extent Tucker seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Clerk of the District 

Court to amend information in the District Court docket entries, the request is denied. 

Mandamus is a remedy appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. Madden v. 

Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Tucker, whose filings are exceedingly difficult to 

read, and who does not show that he has tried to resolve his complaint with the District 

Court Clerk’s Office or through the District Court, has not established that he has a “clear 

and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other adequate 

means to obtain the desired relief.” Id. Given the difficulty the Clerk must encounter in 

deciphering the exact title of Tucker’s numerous filings, even if Tucker met the standard 

for mandamus relief, we would decline to exercise our discretion to grant it on his claim. 

 

1

 We observe that Tucker has already filed an appeal (in connection with D.N.J. Civ. No. 

13-cv-04417) of the District Court’s December 23, 2014 order denying reconsideration. 

That appeal remains pending at C.A. No. 15-1166 and has been listed by the Clerk for 

dismissal due to a possible jurisdictional defect. 
3 

 For these reasons, we deny Tucker’s mandamus petition. We also deny Tucker’s 

remaining pending motions, including his motion for compensatory and punitive 

damages, his motion to compel, his motion requesting the imposition of liens, his motion 

for this Court to accept evidence, and his motion for an extension of time to pay the fees 

for this action. Regarding his motion for an extension of time, we note that it is 

unnecessary because we granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis by order 

entered January 9, 2015.