2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-16-2015

In Re: Thomas Clauso

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This September 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 2015 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: Thomas Clauso" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 990.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/990
RESUBMIT HLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2314

___________

IN RE: THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-12-cv-03969)

____________________________________

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

August 5, 2015

Before: Chief Judge MCKEE, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 16, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Thomas James Clauso filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on May 

25, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 21. In that petition and subsequent motions, Clauso 

requested that we (1) prompt the District Court to rule on an outstanding motion in his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding, (2) provide equitable relief addressing certain conditions of 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

his state incarceration, and (3) address the merits of his § 2254 petition. We invited the 

District Court to respond to Clauso’s petition and held his other motions in abeyance 

pending resolution of his mandamus petition. On July 30, 2015, the District Court 

entered an opinion and order that addressed and dismissed Clauso’s outstanding habeas 

petition for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Because the District Court has now resolved Clauso’s outstanding action, his 

mandamus petition must be dismissed as moot to the extent it was predicated on delay by 

the District Court. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d 

Cir. 1996). 

We will also deny Clauso’s requests for equitable relief because they fall outside 

the scope of our authority in a mandamus proceeding. The purpose of the writ of 

mandamus is to compel a lower court to perform its duty. See In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 

135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Clauso’s motions, however, are not directed 

at a lower federal court. Rather, he requests that this Court require state prison officials 

to undertake certain remedial actions. Clauso must request such relief in an appropriate 

action before a federal district court in the first instance; if denied, he may then properly 

raise these claims before this Court on appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 

214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that “mandamus is not a substitute for appeal”). 
3

Similarly, the merits of Clauso’s habeas petition are outside the scope of this 

mandamus proceeding. See id. If he wishes to dispute the District Court’s resolution of 

his § 2254 claims, Clauso may do so by filing a proper appeal.

Accordingly, we will dismiss Clauso’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. 

All other pending motions are denied.