2009 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 8-13-2009 

# In Re: S t ephe n Mit chel 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 n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-2905

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 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 g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . 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: S t e p he n Mit che l l " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 820. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/8201

H L D - 114 ( Jul y 2009) 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 . 09- 2905

________________ I N R E: STEP HEN M I TCH ELL, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a 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 M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 3: 08- cv- 00787; M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 3: 08- cv- 01588; and M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 3: 09- cv- 00789)

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

J ul y31, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (fil ed : A u g u st 13 , 2 0 0 9 )

_______________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C U R I A M.

S tep h e n M itch e ll i s a P e n n sy lv a n ia in m a te w h o h a s f iled th re e se p a ra te s u its i n fede r al di s t r i ctcour tal l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s ci vi l r i ght s r el at ed t o var i ous pr i s on p ra c tice s a n d o c c u rre n c e s in th e c o u rse o f h is in c a rc e ra tio n . A ll th re e su its a re still p e n d in g . 

### M itch ell h as f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o ra wr i to f

ma n d a mu s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C.§ 1651, appar ent l ys eeki ng t o obt ai n fas t eradj udi cat i on of hi s s ui t s byt he U ni t ed St at es

D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r t h e M id d le D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . M andamus i s a “dr as t i c r emedy ” w hi ch 

### i s ge ne r a l l y us e d onl y

t o “ c onfi ne anin f erio r co urt to a law f

u l ex ercise o f

its p rescrib edj urisd ictio no r to co m p el it to e xe r c i s e i t s author i ty

whe n i t i s i t s duty

t o do s o. ” Ke rr

v. U. S. Di s t . Court , 426 U. S. 394, 40 2 (19 76 ) ( ci tati on s om itte d). Only “e xcepti on alci rc um st ance s am ounting to a ju dici al

‘ us ur pat i on of powe r ’ ” warr ant the us e of thi s e xtr a or di nary r e m e dy . I d. ( c i t at i on om itte d). Rel ie f is not warr ante d h er e.

M itch ell’s three actio n s w ere f iledinAp ril 2 0 0 8 , Au g u st 2 0 0 8 , an dAp ril 20 09 , r es pect ivel y . Revie w o f the Distri ct Co urt’ s docket for eac h cas e r evea ls no delay th at w o u ldco n stitute anex cep tio n al circum stan ce. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. W e al s o denyM i t chel l ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el and hi s “M ot i on for O rd e r o f P ro te c tio n .”



### 2