2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-17-2012

In Re: Shaun Wright

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2493

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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: Shaun Wright " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 563.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/563
BLD-236 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2493

___________

IN RE: SHAUN WRIGHT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-00918)

____________________________________

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

July 26, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 17, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Shaun Wright seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to take action concerning a notice 

of appeal. We will deny the mandamus petition.

In 2007, Wright filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court. The claims 

were litigated over several years. During the more recent procedural history, this Court 

remanded the case for trial on Wright’s claim that a police detective illegally seized
2

money orders from his girlfriend during a robbery investigation. The parties consented to 

the authority of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a trial and all further 

proceedings, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. On December 12, 2011, Wright filed a motion for default judgment. 

The Magistrate Judge denied the motion on December 15, 2011. The matter proceeded to 

a non-jury trial, which was held on February 21, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Magistrate 

Judge issued an opinion and order finding against Wright on the remaining claim. The 

District Court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor on that same date.

Wright then filed his mandamus petition. The petition relates to the December 15, 

2011 denial of his motion for default judgment. Wright, a state prisoner, asserts that he 

filed a notice of appeal from that decision on January 3, 2012, by handing it to prison 

officials for mailing. He also states that he received a stamped and signed prison 

mailroom receipt the next day, indicating that first class postage was paid for the item to 

be sent. Wright inquired about the status of his appeal on January 6, 2012, while he was 

at the courthouse for a morning pretrial conference. The appeal had not been docketed at 

the time, but he acknowledges in his mandamus petition that less than three days had 

passed since he had filed the notice via the “prison mailbox rule.” He requested and 

received a copy of his District Court docket sheet, but the notice of appeal had not been 

docketed. He has received no acknowledgment from this Court or the District Court 

regarding his January 3, 2012 notice of appeal. Thus, he asks this Court for a writ of 
3

mandamus to compel the District Court to rectify the situation, either by forwarding the 

notice of appeal to this Court, or by docketing the notice of appeal as timely filed.

The remedy of mandamus is appropriate to aid this Court’s jurisdiction in 

extraordinary circumstances only. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d 

Cir. 1998). To prevail, a petitioner must show, among other things, that there are no 

other available means to obtain the relief he seeks. Id. Moreover, mandamus petitioners 

must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. See Kerr v. United States District 

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).

As Wright acknowledges as part of his narrative, the District Court record is 

devoid of any indication that he made any attempt to file a notice of appeal on January 3, 

2012. Aside from his early inquiry on January 6, 2012, Wright does not allege that he 

made any attempt to investigate the matter with the District Court. Wright requested an 

updated docket sheet, but his inquiry letter, received in April 2012, is stated generally and 

does not mention any concern over a missing notice of appeal. Wright does not support 

his mandamus petition with any exhibits, so we are left to consider his bare, unsupported 

allegations. On that point, Wright asserts that he did not have the opportunity to 

photocopy his mailroom receipt, so instead he included his certification, under penalty of 

perjury, that his allegations are true. He noted that he would provide a copy of the receipt 

when he is able, but to date, he has not done so. More critically, Wright has not 

submitted any evidence of the notice of appeal itself, and he makes no claim in his 
4

mandamus petition that he could ever do so. Upon consideration, we conclude that 

mandamus relief is not warranted here.

We add that even if Wright had been successful in filing a notice of appeal on 

January 3, 2012, the December 15, 2011 order denying his motion for default judgment 

would not have been appealable at that time. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this Court 

generally has jurisdiction only over “final decisions” of the district courts. A “final 

decision” is one which “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court 

to do but execute the judgment.” Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 

480 U.S. 370, 374-75 (1987) (citation omitted). A denial of a motion for a default 

judgment is not such a decision. See, e.g., Adult Film Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Thetford, 

776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1985). The order would be appealable at the time of final 

judgment, and mandamus is not to be used as an alternative to an appeal. See In re 

Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d at 223.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny .