*AMENDED BLD-052 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-4100

___________

IN RE: HUBERT JACKSON,

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. 2:13-cv-01301)

____________________________________

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

November 22, 2016

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

(Filed: January 4, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pennsylvania state prisoner Hubert Jackson, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition

for a writ of mandamus that concerns a 2013 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) order issued by a 

United States Magistrate Judge. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

I.

A prisoner who brings a civil action IFP is “required to pay the full amount of a 

filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After the prisoner pays an “initial partial filing fee,” 

he is required to “make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income

credited to [his] account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added).

In November 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy granted

Jackson permission to proceed IFP in a prisoner civil rights action that he filed in the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In highlighting 

Jackson’s obligation under § 1915(b)(2), Magistrate Judge Eddy’s IFP order used the 

word “deposits” instead of “income.” Jackson did not appeal that order to the presiding 

District Judge.1

More than two years later, in February 2016, Jackson filed a “Motion for 

Clarification” in the District Court. That motion appeared to take issue with Magistrate 

Judge Eddy’s use of the word “deposits” in her IFP order. Later that month, Magistrate 

Judge Eddy denied that motion in a text-only order, stating that the motion was untimely 

and without merit. As before, Jackson did not appeal to the District Judge.

Jackson now brings this mandamus petition, arguing that the IFP order’s use of the 

word “deposits” has caused the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“the DOC”) to 

deduct certain money — specifically, money that he receives from family and friends, as 

 

1

Jackson could have filed such an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3

well as the “gratuitous payment” that he receives for his work in prison — that does not 

qualify as “income.” Jackson asks us to direct Magistrate Judge Eddy to (1) stop the 

DOC from deducting money that is not “income,” and (2) refund the $350 filing fee for 

his District Court action (and the filing fee for some unspecified appeal). 

II.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available in extraordinary 

circumstances only. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 

2005). Those circumstances are not present in this case. Jackson’s challenge to the 

wording of Magistrate Judge Eddy’s IFP order could have been raised in an appeal to the 

District Judge. Jackson also could have appealed Magistrate Judge Eddy’s denial of his 

“Motion for Clarification.” Because that relief was available, a writ of mandamus is not 

warranted here. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that “a 

writ of mandamus may not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal”). 

Accordingly, we will deny Jackson’s petition, as well as his “Motion for a Decision” and 

his “Motion for Intervention by the Chief Judge.”2 

 

2 Although we do not reach the merits of Jackson’s challenge to the IFP order, we note 

that it appears he suffered no prejudice from that order’s use of the word “deposits” 

instead of “income.” See, e.g., Cosby v. Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324, 1326 (10th Cir. 2003) 

(explaining that the term “income” in § 1915(b)(2) means “all deposits to the prisoner’s 

inmate account”); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 1998) (same).