2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-11-2010 

# In Re: D e nni s J ohn C ampb el l 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 nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-2560

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: D e nni s J o hn C amp be l l " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 769. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/769D L D - 246 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 2560

___________ I N R E: J OH N C AM PBELL,

Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 01867) U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 00453)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J ul y15, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N A N D H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t11, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D enni s J ohn C ampbel l s eeks a w r i tof m andamus c om pel l i ng t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o, i nt eral i a, t r ans ferhi s cas e t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a s o t hati tm aybe cons ol i dat ed w i t h a ca s e pendi ng i n t hatC our t . For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l deny2

th e p e titio n . I n O ct ober2008, C ampbel l fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r ai s i ng cl ai m s pur s uantt o t he Fr eedom of I nfor m at i on A ctand the Pr i vacyA ct . ( See M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 08- cv- 01867. ) U pon r evi ew of the compl ai nt , t he C our tdet erm i ned thatvenue w as notappr opr i at e i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctand tr ans ferr ed the compl ai ntt o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch as s er t ed j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e. ( See E. D . Pa. C i v. N o. 09- cv- 00453. ) I n a M ar ch 9, 2010 or der , t he C our tgr ant ed the Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on’ s m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d c lo se d th e c a se . C a m p b e ll h a s f iled a n a p p e a l o f

th a t o rd e r in th is C o u rt . (S e e C .A . N o . 1 0 -2 2 5 5 .) D es pi t e hi s pendi ng appea l , C ampbel l s eeks a w r i tof m andamus c om pel l i ng t he E a ste rn D istric t to e ith e r tra n sf e r h is c a se b a c k to th e M id d le D istric t, or c o n so lid a te it w i t h anothercas e thathe has fi l ed aga i ns tt he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on i n t he E as t ern D i s t r i ct . C ampbel l al s o as ks us t o r evi ew t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct ’ s venue determ i nati on as w el l as the E ast ern D i stri ct ’s decis i on t o asser tj uri sdi ct i on ov er the case a n d s u b s e q u e n t a lle g e d re f u s a l to c o n s o lid a te it w ith a re la te d c a s e in th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t. L as t l y , C ampbel l s eeks r evi ew of the East ern D i s t r i ct ’ s s um m aryj udgm entrul i ng. A w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedy . See I n r e Pas quar i el l o, 16 F. 3d 525, 528 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . T he pet i t i onerm us thave no otheradequa t e means t o obt ai n t he re lie f d e s ir e d a n d th e p e titio n e r m u s t s h o w a “ c le a r a n d in d is p u ta b le ” ri g h t to th e w ri t.I tdoes notappea rt hatC ampbel l everfi l ed a mot i on t o cons ol i dat e. 1 3 S ee K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 ). In p arti cu lar, m an d am u s is no t a su b sti tute fo r an ap p ea l; if a p eti ti o n er c an o b tai n reli ef b yan o rdin ary appea l , a courtw i l l noti s s ue the w r i t . See I n r e For d M ot orC o. , 110 F. 3d 954, 957 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A s m ent i oned, C ampbel l has an appe al of the East ern D i s t r i ct ’ s M ar ch 9, 2010 or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on pendi ng i n t hi s C our t . I n t hatappea l , C ampbel l m ays eek r evi ew of thatdet erm i nat i on as w el l as anyof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr evi ous rul i ngs , i ncl udi ng i t s al l eged r efus al t o cons ol i dat e the cas e ati s s ue her e w i t h anotherm at t er . T o t he ext entt hatC ampbel l al s o s eeks r evi ew of 1 th e E a ste rn D istric t’s d e c isio n to e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n o v e r th e c a se in lig h t o f th e M id d le D istric t’s v e n u e d e ter m in a tio n , h e m a ya lso ra ise th a t issu e o n a p p e a l. B eca us e C ampbel l has notdemonst r at ed thathe i s w i t houtot heradequa t e means forr el i ef, s ee K err , 426 U . S. at403, m andamus r el i ef i s notappr opr i at e and w e w i l l deny hi s pet i t i on.