2007 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 3-6-2007 

# In Re: Mich a el H o dge 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 . 07-1200

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 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 git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . 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: Mich a e l H od g e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1521. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1521AL D- 1 3 2 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 . 07- 1200

________________ I N R E: M I CH AEL EU GEN E HO DG E, 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. 06- cv- 01622)

_____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderR ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

February23, 2007 B efore: S l ov i t er, C hag ares and N y gaard, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 6, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM M i chae l E ugene H odge pet i t i ons t hi s C our tfora w r i tof m andamus or der i ng 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 to a p p o in t co u n se l to as s i s thi m i n hi s pendi ng ci vi l r i ght s act i on. B eca us e H odge has notdemonst r at ed thathe i s ent i t l ed t o s uch r el i ef, w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on. H odge s ubm i t t ed hi s m andamus pe t i t i on s hor t l yaft ert he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s edB eca us e i tw as noti ni t i al l ycl earw hetherH odge i nt ended a n appea l ora mandam us 1 p e titio n , th e c a s e w a s lis te d in th e a lte rn a tiv e f o r p o s s ib le d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) . W e have s i nce de t er m i ned thatt hi s i s i ndeed a m andamus pe t i t i on and, t hus , do n o t dism iss th e a cti o n u n d er § 1 9 1 5 (e). 2 h i s a p p e a l o f

t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n f

o ra p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e l . He a rg u e s th a t h e is e n tit led to m a n d a m u s re lief b e c a u se th e M a g istra te J u d g e a b u se d h is di s cr et i on bynotappoi nt i ng couns el . A w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedy t hatw i l l i s s ue onl yw her e the pet i t i onerhas no al t ernat e means of obt ai ni ng t he des i r ed r el i ef a nd ent i t l ement t o t he w r i ti s cl earand i ndi s put abl e. See M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . For i ns t ance , “a w r i tof m andamus maynoti s s ue i f a p e t i t i o n e rc a n o b t a i n r e l i e f b ya p p e a l . ” I d . a t7 7 . Up o n r e v i e wi n g t h e r e c o r d , we concl ude thatH odge has nots how n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng m andamus r el i ef. T o t he ext entt hathe i s s eeki ng i m m edi at e appe l l at e r evi ew of the cha l l enged or der s , w e not e thatt heyar e notappea l abl e unt i l t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er s a fi nal jud g m en t. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 ; Sm ith -B eyv . P etso ck , 7 4 1 F . 2 d 2 2 , 2 3 -26 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). F in a lly , w e d e n yth e m o tio n f o r c o u n se l H o d g e f

iled in th is C o u rt. 1