2008 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 6-27-2008 

# In Re: Mindy Z ied-C ampb el l P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2613

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_2008

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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Mindy Z ie d -C amp be l l " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 961. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/961A L D - 228 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. 08- 2613

___________ I N R E: M I ND Y J AY E ZI ED- CA M PBELL, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om 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

( R el at ed t o C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00026) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J une 12, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FI SH E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 27, 2008 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i ndyJ ay e Zi ed- C ampbel l pr es ent s a mandam us pet i t i on t hr ough w hi ch s he chal l enges s om e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i ons i n herci vi l r i ght s s ui t . Speci fi cal l y , s he ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed a c l eardut yon A pr i l 23, 2008, w hen i tdeni ed herPA C E R , an ac r onym forPubl i c A cce s s t o E l ectr oni c R ecor ds , i s a s ervi ce that 1 pr ovi des el ectr oni c ac ces s vi a the I nt ernett o cas e and doc keti nfor m at i on fr om t he fe der al cou rt s. 2 r eques tt o w ai ve PA C E R fee s . She al s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have 1 g ra n ted h e r m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a n d v a c a ted its M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r g ra n tin g in par tand deny i ng i n par tt he def endant s ’ m ot i on forj udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs . She as ks t hatw e i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus r equi r i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o vaca t e i t s or der s of M ar ch 30, 2007, and A pr i l 23, 2008. W e w il l den yZ ied-C am p b ell ’s m an d am u s p eti ti o n . M an d am u s is an ex tr ao rdin ary r emedy . See K errv. U . S. D i s t . C our t , 426 U . S. 394, 402 ( 1976) . W i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he i s s ui ng cour t , m andamus tr adi t i onal l ym aybe “us ed . . . onl y‘ t o confi ne an i nfer i or c o u rt to a law f

u l ex e rc ise o f

its p re sc rib e d ju risd ictio n o r to c o m p e l itto e x e rc ise its author i t yw hen i ti s i t s dut yt o do s o. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T o w i n m andamus r el i ef for a “j ud i ci al usurpat i on of p ow er” ora “cl ear abuse of dis cret i on , ” a peti t i on er m ust s how t hats he has “no otheradequa t e means t o at t ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef, ” ( s o as t o pr event t he w r i tfr om bei ng us ed a s ubs t i tut e forappea l ) and “a r i ghtt o t he w r i t[that ] i s cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ’ ” C heneyv. U . S. D i s t . C our t , 542 U . S. 367, 380- 81 ( 2004) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ); s e e a ls o In re P a te n a u d e , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Z i ed-C am pb el l , w ho asks us t o d i rectt he D i stri ctC ou rtt o v acat e i t s order s, att em p ts t o sh o e-h o rn a n ap p ea l i n to a p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of m an d am u s. H o w ev er, m and am us i s not a s ub st i tute for appeal. S ee C hen ey , 54 2 U . S . at38 0; M add en v . M y ers ,3

102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . Z i ed- C ampbel l cannots how t hats he i s w i t houtan adequa t e means forr el i ef. A ts om e t i m e, s he mayr enew herar gum ent s t hats he s how ed c a u se f o r a w a iv e r o f

th e P A C E R f

e e s a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h e r m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n in a n a p p e a l f ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n s . A ccor di ngl y , m andamus r el i ef i s notappr opr i at e her e.