2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-8-2008

In Re: Frederick Tor

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3858

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

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 2008 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: Frederick Tor " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 387.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/387
1

ALD-2 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3858

___________

IN RE: FREDERICK TORRENCE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-00331)

____________________________________

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

October 2, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed: October 8, 2008

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Frederick M. Torrence, a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of

mandamus compelling the District Court to order production of discovery materials. For

the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Torrence filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials in

the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Torrence has
 The Court denied Torrence’s “Motion for Discovery of Documentary Evidence,” No. 1

31, “Motion for Request for Discovery,” No. 40, and “Motion to Compel (Plaintiff’s

Request for Oral Depositions),” No. 65. The pending motion is Torrence’s “Motion for

Order to Compel the Production [of Statements and Testimony],” No. 58, which was

entered May 30, 2008.

2

filed four motions requesting that the District Court order the production of allegedly

discoverable information. The Court denied three such motions, and one remains

pending.1

In his petition, Torrence alleges that the District Court arbitrarily denied his

discovery motions and colluded with Defendants to deny Torrence a fair trial. He alleges

that such actions violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, and seeks a writ directing the District Court to order that

Defendants produce the sought-after information.

Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that we have discretion to award only

when a petitioner demonstrates, among other things, a “clear and indisputable” right to

relief. In re Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006). Mandamus lies

only when there is no other remedy, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa,

490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and must not be used as a mere substitute for appeal. In re Diet

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2005). Because Torrence’s petition

amounts to an appeal of the District Court’s denial of his discovery motions, mandamus is

not an appropriate remedy and we deny his petition. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v.

Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991).