1 DLD

- 070 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 0

- 4437

___________ IN RE: MARCUS L. WALLACE , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Prohibition Re lated to M.D. Pa. No. 3

- 10

- cv

- 01309

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 16, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER AND STAPLETON , Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : January 11, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Marcus Wallace, has been charged in the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, with, among other things, first and second degree
murder, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief. Wallace is currently awai ting tr ial on
those and other charges in three separate criminal cases, all before the Court of Common

Pleas. He has filed an ori ginal petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court which
appears to be requesting that this Court compel th e H onorable R ichard J. Walsh of the2 Court of Common Pleas to quash the information issued against Wallace.

Although Wallace styles his petition as a writ of prohibition, it more accurately
could be classified as a writ of mandamus, because it essentially asks us to compel the

Court of Common Pleas to quash the information in his case

. See In re Sch. Asbestos
Litig. , 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990) (e xplaining that writs of prohibition
traditionally confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction,
while writs of mandamus compel lower courts to exercise their authority ). Regardless of
whether the petition is viewed as a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus, however,
we lack ju risdiction to grant relief and will dismiss the petitio n. See id. (“[M]odern

courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic differences between the
two writs.”).

U nder the All Writs Act, Congress has conferred jurisdiction on this Court to issue

writs of prohibition and mandamus only “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)

.
It is thus w ell

- settled that we may issue such writ s only if there is an independent basis
for subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Christian , 660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir.
1981) (explaining that, “[ b]efore entertaining” a petition for a writ of mandamus, “we
must identify a jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist”).

Ther e is no such basis here. Wallace does not allege any action or omission by a

United States District Court within this Circuit over which we might exercise our
supervisory authority by way of prohibition or mandamus. Cf. id. at 895 (“ ‘The focal3 question posed for a Court of Appeals by a petition for the issuance of a writ is whether

the action of the District Court t ends to frustrate or impede the ultimate exercise by the
Court of Appeals of its appellate jurisdiction granted in so me other provision of the

law.’ ”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Nor does he allege any action or omission
by a federal officer, emp loyee, or agency that a United States District Court might have
prohibition or mandamus jurisdiction to address in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1361 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof
to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”) (emphasis added).
Instead, Wallace asks us to exercise our prohibition or mandamus jurisdiction over

a state c ourt to compel it to quash t he information in his state court case

. We do not have
jurisdiction to grant that request. See In re Wolenski , 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963 )
(per curiam) (explaining that District Court “had no jurisdiction” to “issue a writ of
mandamus compelli ng act ion by a state official”); s ee also White v. Ward , 145 F.3d
1139, 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (expla ining that federal courts “lack [ ] jurisdiction to direct a
state court to perform its duty”); Demos v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of

Wash. , 925 F .2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to issue a
writ of mandamus to a state court.”).
Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief that Wallace requests,

we will dismiss his petition.