2014 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

6-19-2014 

# I n R e: Ar th ur D '

Am a r io , III

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 . 14-2108

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_2014

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 2014 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: Ar th ur D '

Am a r io , I I I " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 600. 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_2014/600

### DLD

- 277 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 2108

___________ IN RE: ARTHUR D’AMARIO III, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Unit ed States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 06

- cr - 00112

- 001 )

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

June 12, 2014 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

(Opi nion filed : June 19, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Arthur D’Amario III has filed a pe tition for a writ of mandamus, asking for the following relief: (1) “For the forced recusal of Judge Paul S. Diamond from U.S. v. D’Amario , No. CR 6

- 112

- PSD (D/NJ), due to bias, judicial fraud and criminality”; (2) “For the release of Petitioner from a false imprisonment”; and (3) “That this Court place Judge Diamond under arrest and subject him to a comprehensive inpatient mental evaluation.” Because D’Amari o’s requests are either frivolous or not properly brought in a petition for a writ of mandamus, we will deny the petition.

### 2

As to his f

irst request , w hile mandamus is available to review a district court’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. , 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993), D’Amario’s request is baseless. We see nothing in the record that would give us reason to question the District Court’s impartiality. As to his s econd, mandamus is not a proper m eans for seeking release from imprisonment, as mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996). Indeed, D’Amario’s appeal from the revocation of his supervised release is currently pending. See C. A. No. 13

- 3515. Finally, D’Amario’s third request, which is in any event frivolous, is not properly brought in a petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re McBryde , 117 F.3d 208, 220 n.7 (5th Cir. 1997). 1 

### For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the peti tion for a writ of mandamus.

1 

### In his supplement, D’Amario states that previous failures to release him to his mother as part of his supervised release “warrant[] a full criminal investigation by the Circuit.” Courts of appeals do not undertake criminal investigations. While a district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to issue a writ “ to compel an officer or em ployee of the United States . . . to perfor m a duty owed to the plaintiff,” the writ may issue only for

“ a clear nondiscretionary dut y. ” Heckler v. Ringer , 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) . Initiation of a criminal investigation is a discretionary act and thus not the proper subject of a mandamus request. See, e.g. , Jafree v. Barber , 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982).