2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-7-2011

In Re: Joseph W. Higgins

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1687

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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: Joseph W. Higgins " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1475.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1475
ALD-144 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 11-1687 

 ___________ 

IN RE: JOSEPH W. HIGGINS, 

 Petitioner 

 ____________________________________ 

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 3:10-cv-05969) 

 ____________________________________ 

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

March 24, 2011 

 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: April 7, 2011) 

 _________ 

 OPINION 

 _________ 

PER CURIAM 

 Joseph Higgins, proceeding pro se, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus 

directing the District Court to rule on the merits of an amended complaint that it recently 

dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. 

I. 

 In July 2010, Higgins filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey against District Judge Stanley R. Chesler and Magistrate Judge 
2 

 

Michael A. Shipp. Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee of this Court designated Judge Juan 

R. Sanchez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 

preside over Higgins’s civil action. 1

 About a month after filing his complaint, Higgins filed an amended complaint and 

subsequently moved for injunctive relief. His amended complaint alleged that Judge 

Chesler and Magistrate Judge Shipp had conspired to dismiss a previous civil action he 

had filed in order to retaliate against him for having moved to recuse Magistrate Judge 

Shipp in a third civil action. On February 22, 2011, the District Court, acting sua sponte, 

dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and denied 

Higgins’s motion for injunctive relief as moot. In doing so, the court explained that 

“[b]ecause the dismissal of [Higgins’s earlier case] was a judicial action, and because no 

facts are alleged suggesting the defendants acted in the complete absence of all 

jurisdiction, Judge Chesler and Magistrate Judge Shipp are immune from suit.” (Dist. Ct. 

Order of Feb. 22, 2011, at n.1.) Higgins subsequently filed a timely motion for 

reconsideration, which the court denied on March 9, 2011. 

 On March 16, 2011, Higgins filed the instant petition, seeking a writ of mandamus 

compelling the District Court to serve summonses on Judge Chesler and Magistrate Judge 

Shipp, and to adjudicate his claim against them “on the merits.” 

1

The references in this opinion to actions taken by the District Court refer to 

actions taken by Judge Sanchez. 
3 

II. 

 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary situations. 

See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain a 

writ of mandamus, 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, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, and “a writ of mandamus may not 

issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d 

Cir. 1996). 

 In this case, the District Court entered a final appealable order and closed 

Higgins’s civil action. Because Higgins has an adequate means of challenging the court’s 

judgment — by filing an appeal — mandamus relief is not warranted here.2

 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition. To the extent Higgins seeks attorney’s fees, 

costs, and other expenses, that request is denied. 

 2

We note, without deciding, that an appeal from the District Court’s judgment 

would almost certainly fail, for it does not appear that the court erred in its application of 

the doctrine of judicial immunity, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978), 

or abused its discretion in denying Higgins’s motion for reconsideration.