DLD-160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18-3652

___________

IN RE: RAMSEY RANDALL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________

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

April 11, 2019

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, Jr., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 19, 2019)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Ramsey Randall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order the 

state court to rule on a pretrial motion in criminal proceedings against him. We will deny 

his petition.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary 

circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 
2

2005). Generally, mandamus is a “means ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful 

exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its 

duty to do so.’” United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 893 (3d Cir. 1981) (quoting 

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943)). A writ should not issue unless 

the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain the relief” sought, and has shown 

that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 

418 F.3d at 378-79 (quoting Cheney v. United States, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).

It is well-settled that we may consider a petition for a writ of mandamus only if the 

action involves subject matter that may at some time come within this Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction. See Christian, 660 F.2d at 894-95. Here, however, Randall does not allege 

any act or omission by a federal District Court within this Circuit over which we could 

exercise authority by way of mandamus. Nor does he allege any act or omission by a 

federal officer, employee, or agency that a District Court might have mandamus 

jurisdiction to address in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 

Instead, Randall’s original mandamus petition asks us to order a state court to rule 

on a motion filed in that court. We lack the authority to grant such relief. See In re 

Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[I]n the ordinary course of events, federal 

courts (except for the Supreme Court) lack appellate jurisdiction over their state 

counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally inappropriate.”); see also White 

 

constitute binding precedent.
3

v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (federal courts lack 

jurisdiction to direct a state court to rule on habeas petition). Further, it appears that the 

state court has since ruled on Randall’s motion, so that even if we had the authority to 

order the state court to act, Randall’s request would be moot. See In re Orthopedic Bone 

Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 94 F.3d 110, 110 (3d Cir. 1996); cf. In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 

1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur 

during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting any 

effective relief.”).

In his amended mandamus petition, Randall appears to argue that the delayed

decision on his pretrial motion violated his due process rights and he asks us to vacate his 

conviction and sentence. A claim by a prisoner that “he is in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court . . . in violation of the Constitution” is properly brought in a 

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Randall currently has such a petition pending.

Because he had “other adequate means to attain the relief” sought, mandamus relief is not 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, we will deny the original petition and the amended petition.