DLD-145 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1508

___________

IN RE: MARCUS L. WALLACE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Prohibition from 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 ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 20, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

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

Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, on charges of first and second degree murder, 

aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and related charges. He has filed an original 

petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court that appears to be requesting that we

compel the Court of Common Pleas to dismiss the charges against him. He argues the 

Court of Common Pleas lacks personal jurisdiction over him for a variety of alleged 
2

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

of prohibition. 

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

Litig., 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 jurisdiction to grant relief and will dismiss the petition. See id. (“[M]odern 

courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic differences between the 

two writs.”). 

Under 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 well-settled that we may issue such writs 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”).

There 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 focal 
3

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 jurisdiction granted in some 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 court to compel it to dismiss his 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 compelling action 

by a state official”); see also White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1139 (10th Cir. 1998)

(explaining 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., 925 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.