2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-11-2011 

# I n R e: M a r c u s W

al l a ce

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-4438

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: M a r c us W

al l a c e " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1984. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/19841 DLD
- 071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 0

- 4438

___________ 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 dismiss the charges against Wallace due to lack of evidence

.

Although Wallace styles his petition as a writ of prohibition, it more accurately could be classified as a writ of mandamus, because it essentia lly 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) (e xplaining that writs of prohibition traditionally confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of it s 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 wi ll dismis s the petition. 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) (explai ning 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 Dis trict Court tends 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, employee, or agency that a United States District Court might have mandamus or prohibition 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 o f 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 dismiss the charges against him

. 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 acti on 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. Cou r t for the E. Dist. of Wash. , 925
F. 2d 1160, 1161

- 62 (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.