2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-11-2011

In Re: Marcus Wallace

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4438

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Marcus Wallace " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1984.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1984
1

DLD-071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4438

___________

IN RE: MARCUS L. WALLACE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Related 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 awaiting trial on 

those and other charges in three separate criminal cases, all before the Court of Common 

Pleas. He has filed an original petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court which 

appears to be requesting that this Court compel the Honorable Richard J. Walsh of the 
2

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 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 

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 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 court 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 

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. United States Dist. Court 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.