DLD

- 145 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 1508

___________ IN RE: MARCUS L. WALLACE , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Prohibition fr om the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3

- 10

- cv

- 01309)

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 24, 2011

Before: BARRY, FISHER AND RO TH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : July 20, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Petitioner, Marcus Wallace, is currently awaiting trial in the Court of Common

Pleas of Fra nklin County, Pe nnsylvania, on charges of first and second degree murder, aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and related charges . He has filed an ori ginal petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court that appears to be requesting that we compel the Court of Com mon Pleas to dis miss the charges against him . He argues the Court of Common Pleas lacks personal jurisdiction over him for a variety of alleged2 reasons

. He also filed various accompanying motions in support of his petition for a writ of prohibition.

A lthough 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 dismiss the charges against him. See In re Sch. Asbestos

Liti g. , 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990) (explaining 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 petition. See id. (“[M]odern

courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic differences b etween 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 o nly 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 i ssuance 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 mandamu s. 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 tends to frustrate or impede the ultimate exercise by the Court of Appeals of its appellate jurisdict ion 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, employee, 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). 1
Instead, Wallace asks us to exercise our prohibition or mandamus jurisdiction over

a state c ourt to compel it to dismiss his case

. We do not have jurisdiction to grant that
request. See In re Wolenski , 324 F.2d 309, 3 09 (3d Cir. 1963 ) (per curiam) (explaining that District Court “had no jurisdiction” to “issue a writ of mandamus compelli ng action 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. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. , 9 25 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.”).

1 Although Wallace does refer to Magistrate Judge Andrew Smyser in his petition, it appears that he mistakenly believed he was filing his petition before the Magistrate Judge rather than this Court. To the extent that Wallace asks us to compel the Magistrate Judge to rule on Wallace’s post

- judgment District Court filings, we deny that request. For a more detailed analysis on that issue, we refer the reader to Wallace’s related cases at C.A. Nos. 11

- 1509 and 11

- 1510.4 Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief that Wallace requests,

we will dismiss his petition. In reaching our decision, we also considered Wallace’s motions accompanying his petition for a writ of prohibition, and now dismiss them along with his petition.