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

4-7-2014 

# I n R e: C r ai g S a unde rs
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 . 14-1538

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: C r ai g S a unde r s " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 377. 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_2014/377

### BLD

- 214 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 1538

___________ IN RE: CRAIG SAUNDERS,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United Stat es District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:11

- cv - 06327 )

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

March 27, 2014 Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judge s

( Filed: April 7, 2014 )

_________________ OPINION

_________________ PER CURIAM
In an e arlier appeal , Craig Saunders , a state prisoner, was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. At that time, Saunders was notifi ed that he was required to pay the full $455 fee in installments regardless of the outcome of his appeal and the warden was directed to collect and forward the fee to the District Court Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Saunders v. Phila. Dist . Att’y’s Office , C.A. No. 13

- 1951 (order entered May 6, 2013). Sub sequently, we summarily affirmed the judgment that Saunders

### 2

challenged

. Saunders v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Office , C.A. No. 13

- 1951 (judgment entered Oct. 21, 2013). Saunders now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus . He asks us to order the District Court Clerk to refund the fee that has been remitted and to order the warden to cease deducting funds from Saunders’s inmate account to pay the fee. He argues that he is entitled to suc h relief because we to ok summary action on his appeal. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the r elief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitt ed). Saunders cannot satisfy this standard. Among other things, Saunders has no right to the relief he requests. As he was notified, he is responsible for the fee for his appeal regardless of its outcome. See Porter v. Dep’t of the Treasury , 564 F.3 d 176, 179

- 80 (3d Cir. 2009) (outlining the purposes of the filing and docketing fees and explaining that appellants are not entitled to the ir return). Once Saunders was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he became obligated to pay the full fee. See id. at 180 n.4. That we took summary action before full br iefing did not relieve him of his obligation. Accordingly, we deny Saunders’s petition.