D L D - 261 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- 3227

___________ I N R E : WI L L I AM C. BU L L OC K, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the 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 v. N o. 1: 09- cv- 001902)

____________________________________ Sub mi tt e d Pu r s uantt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

A ugus t5, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJudges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t10, 2010)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n Sept ember2009, Pet i t i onerW i l l i am B ul l ock fi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l act i on i n the C ourtof C om m on Pl eas of C um ber l and C ounty , Penns y l vani a. D efe ndant s r emoved the a c tio n to th e M id d le D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia a n dm o v e df o r j u d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s . I n A pr i l 2010, the D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on, ent er i ng j udgm entfor D ef en d an ts on all claim s. B u ll o ck m o v ed to clarifythe o rde r, an dthe D istri ct C o u rt2

d en ied th e m o ti o n fo r clari fica ti o n . O n Ju ly2 3 , 2 0 1 0 , B u ll o ck p eti ti o n ed this C o u rtfo r a w r i tof m andamus t o compel the D i s tr i ctJudge t o ans w erhi s m ot i on forcl ar i fi cat i on. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n extr aor di narycas es , s ee I n r e D i et D rugs Prod s. L i ab. L i t i g. , 41 8 F . 3d 37 2, 37 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ), as the p et i t i on er m ust demonstr at e thathe has “no otheradequa t e means ” t o obt ai n the r el i ef de s i r ed and a “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). B u llo c kd o e s n o t m e e t th e strin g e n t re q u ire m e n ts f o r re lief h e re . H is m andamus pe t i t i on i s a r eques tforthe D i s tr i ctJudge t o ans w erhi s m ot i on for cl ar i fi cat i on. H ow ever , on Jul y1, 2010, the D i s tr i ctJudge ent er ed an or der , deny i ng B ul l ock’ s m ot i on, expl ai ni ng thatthe mot i on w as unt i m el yand mer i t l es s . A w r i tof m andamus i s nota s ubs t i tut e foran appe al . See I n r e For d M ot orC o. , 110 F. 3d 954, 957 (19 9 7 ); C h en eyv . U . S . D ist . C o . , 5 4 2 U . S . 3 6 7 , 3 8 0 -81 (20 0 4 ). Inso fa r as B u ll o ck ’s p e tit io n a lso re q u e sts a n ap p e a l o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t an dth e o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r c lar if ica tio n , w e n o te th a t th e C lerksu b m itt e dac o p yo f B u llo c k ’s p e tit io n to th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r d o c k e tin g a s a n o tice o f ap p e a l. W e w illa d

ju d ica te th e ap p e a l in due cour s e. A ccor di ngl y , w e det erm i ne thatB ul l ock has notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng thathe h a s n o o th e r m e a n s to o b tain th e re lief h e se e k s a n dth a t h is rig h t to iss u a n c e o f th e w rit is “cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ” A s a r es ul t , w e w i l l denyhi s m andamus pe t i t i on.