2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-2-2008 

# W eldon v . U S Atty MD P

A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3657

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W e ldon v . U S Atty MD P

A" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 420. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/4201

C L D - 273 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3657

___________ RO BE RT C. WEL DON, A ppel l ant

v. U. S . ATT ORNEY F OR THE MI DDLE DI S TRI CT

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- 1502) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A ugus t14, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober2, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R ober tC . W el don, a pr o s e pr i s oner , appea l s the di s m i s s al of a mandam us pet i t i on t hathe fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1361 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfortheW el don al s o ci t es 28 U . S. C . § 1651 as a bas i s forthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, but 1 t he s ubs t ance of hi s pet i t i on fal l s s quar el yw i t hi n t he s cope of § 1361, w hi ch author i zes t he D i s t r i ctC our t s “t o compel an off i cerorempl oy ee of

the U ni t ed St at es oranyagenc y t her eof t o per form a dutyow ed t o t he pl ai nt i ff. ” 2 M i dd l e D i s t r i c tof

Pe nn s y l va ni a . W e l do n p e t i t i on e d the D i s t r i c tCour tt o o r de rthe U . S. 1 A tto rn e y ’s O f

f ice f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to in iti a te a n in v e stig a tio n in to a lle g e d c iv il r ig h ts v io la tio n s a t S C I- D a lla s a n d to p u rs u e a c iv il a n d /o r c ri m in a l a c tio n . H e al s o r eques t ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tor derthe U . S. M ar s hal Ser vi ce t o as s i s ti n t he i nves t i gat i on, appoi ntcouns el forW el don, or dera s ei zur e of a l l r ecor ds , di r ectthe pr i s on to p lac e W e ld o n in a sa f e r h o u sin g u n it, a n d a llo w W e ld o n to re c o v e r e v id e n c e “ w ith in t he s t at e. ” W el don al l eges t hatpr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s bydi s cl os i ng t o ot her in m a tes th a t h e w a s c o n v icte d o f a se x o f f e n se . W e ld o n a lleg e s th a t p riso n o f f icia ls cal l ed hi m a “homose xual pedophi l e” a nd fal s el yacc us ed hi m on t hr ee s epar at e occ as i ons of comm i t t i ng hom os exual act s , w hi ch has fur t heri nci t ed otheri nm at es t o abus e W el don w i t h t he pr i s on offi ci al s ’ know l edge a nd/ orpart i ci pat i on. W el don al l eges thathe has been pl ace d i n t he r es t r i ct i ve hous i ng uni tas a r es ul tof fa l s e mi s conductr epor t s . W el don a ls o a lle g e s th a t h e h a s b e e n d e n ie d f o o d tr a y s . Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d W e l d o n ’ s ma n d a mu s p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n tt o § 2 8 U. S . C. 1915( e) ( 2) , on t he bas i s t hatm andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedyt o w hi ch W el don w as n o t e n title d . W e ld o n a p p e a le d , a n d a p p e lle e s f ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a f

f ir m a n c e .A s the D i stri ctC ou rtob served , the rem edyof m and am us i s r eser ved for the m ost

“extr aor di narys i tuat i ons . ” D eM as i v. W ei s s , 669 F. 2d 114, 117 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . I n or der t o ens ur e thatm andamus i s s par i ngl ygr ant ed, a pet i t i oners eeki ng a w r i tof m andamus m us tdemonstr at e thatno ot heradequa t e means ar e ava i l abl e t o obt ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef and thatt he r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i ti s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ” A l l i ed C hem. C orp. v. D ai fl on, I nc. , 449 U . S. 33, 35 ( 1980) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; M edi a G en. O per at i ons , I nc. v . B u ch an an , 4 1 7 F . 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 4 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s W eldo n ’s pe ti ti o n inv o lves m att ers t hatcan be pur s ued thr ough a ci vi l act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, W el don has not e s ta b lis h e d th a t m a n d a m u s re lie f is w a rr a n te d . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antappel l ee’ s m ot i on and s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or derof th e D istric t C o u rt.