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- 160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 peti tion for a writ of m andamus, 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 D iet Drugs Prods. Lia b. 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 not2

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.’” U nited States v. Chri stian , 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 r ight 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

ac tion involves subjec t 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 w e could exercise aut hority 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, Rand all ’s original manda mus 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 Sup reme Court) lack appellate jurisdiction over their state counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally inappropriate.”); see also White

constitute b inding precedent.3

v. Ward , 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10 th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to direct a state c ourt 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 Orthopedi c Bone Screw Prod. L iab. 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 gran ting any effective r elief.”). 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 pursua nt 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

.