BLD-074 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-4207

___________

In re: TIMOTHY M. FLANNERY,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Related to Civ. No. 1-13-cv-00038)

____________________________________

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

December 15, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 27, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Timothy M. Flannery seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Judge of the

District Court to order an investigation into his allegations of attorney misconduct

pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.2(b). We will deny his request.

Flannery is a plaintiff in a civil suit against a manufacturer of construction 

products. After his attorney moved to withdraw from the case, citing a disagreement 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

between Flannery and the other plaintiff, Flannery filed an attorney misconduct 

complaint in the District Court. He alleged that the attorney’s motion to withdraw was 

“suspect” because it omitted material information about the attorney’s other 

representations, which Flannery believed created numerous conflicts of interest in her 

representation of him in the civil suit.

Flannery later telephoned the Chief Judge of the District Court to ask whether, 

pursuant to Local Rule 83.2(b), his attorney-misconduct complaint had been referred to a 

magistrate judge for an investigation. The Chief Judge issued an order explaining to 

Flannery the procedure outlined in Rule 83.2(b): Once an allegation of attorney 

misconduct—“which, if substantiated would warrant discipline on the part of the 

attorney”—comes before a judicial officer, he or she may refer the matter to the Chief 

Judge; only then shall the Chief Judge pass the matter to a magistrate judge or a 

disciplinary committee for investigation. The Chief Judge also explained that, though

Flannery filed his allegations in the District Court, it had not, in turn, referred the

allegations to the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge concluded that “[u]nless and until [a]

judicial officer determines that the predicates set forth in Rule 83.2(b) exist, and informs 

the Chief Judge accordingly, any involvement by the [Chief Judge] is premature.”

Flannery now seeks a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to compel the Chief 

Judge to refer his allegations of attorney misconduct to a magistrate judge for a report 

and recommendation. Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us 

the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and 
3

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme 

remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must 

demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means to obtain [that] relief,” and that “the 

right to issuance [of the writ] is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 

79 (3d Cir. 1996).

Flannery has not shown a clear and indisputable right to direct the Chief Judge to

refer his attorney-misconduct complaint for investigation. Flannery sought to bypass the 

procedures in Rule 83.2—whereby a judicial officer first determines that the allegations 

of attorney misconduct would warrant discipline and then refers the complaint to the 

Chief Judge—by telephoning the Chief Judge directly and purporting to alert her to his 

allegations. However, as the Chief Judge explained, Flannery cannot force an 

investigation of his allegations of misconduct by reporting them directly to the Chief 

Judge. Only a judicial officer, not a pro se litigant, may refer allegations of attorney 

misconduct to the Chief Judge. Moreover, the judicial officer must first determine that 

the allegations, if substantiated, would warrant attorney discipline. Only then will the 

Chief Judge order an investigation into the allegations. 

For these reasons, we will deny West’s request for a writ of mandamus.