2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-7-2014

In Re: Craig Saunders

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1538

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 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: Craig Saunders" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 377.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/377
BLD-214 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1538

___________

IN RE: CRAIG SAUNDERS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States 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 Judges

(Filed: April 7, 2014)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

In an earlier appeal, Craig Saunders, a state prisoner, was permitted to proceed in 

forma pauperis. At that time, Saunders was notified 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). Subsequently, 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 such relief because we took 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 relief 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 omitted). 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.3d 176, 179-80 (3d Cir. 2009) (outlining the purposes of 

the filing and docketing fees and explaining that appellants are not entitled to their 

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 

briefing did not relieve him of his obligation. Accordingly, we deny Saunders’s petition.