ALD-122 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4586

___________

IN RE: JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

____________________________________

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

February 26, 2015

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed March 20, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Joseph Aruanno, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of 

mandamus in connection with the failure of the United States Marshals Service 

(“USMS”) to serve a defendant in a civil action in the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey, Aruanno v. Officer Caldwell, et al., D.N.J. Civ. No. 09-cv-05652. 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

In 2009, Aruanno, who is civilly committed under the New Jersey Sexually Violent 

Predator Act to the Special Treatment Unit Annex in Avenel, New Jersey, filed an action 

in the District Court alleging violations of his civil rights by various commissioners, 

corrections officers, and medical personnel employed by New Jersey’s Department of 

Corrections and Department of Human Services, including Corrections Officer Caldwell. 

In June 2011, the District Court dismissed Aruanno’s amended complaint as to all other 

defendants and claims, but it ordered that Aruanno’s § 1983 excessive force claim 

proceed against Officer Caldwell. 

Because Aruanno was proceeding in forma pauperis, the District Court ordered the 

USMS to serve the amended complaint on Officer Caldwell. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Despite repeated attempts by the USMS to locate and serve 

Caldwell, and a second order by the District Court directing service, Caldwell was not 

served. In October 2013, Aruanno filed a motion seeking Judge Martini’s recusal from 

the case. Judge Martini denied the motion for recusal and again directed the USMS to 

serve Caldwell. After the USMS reported in November 2014 that it was still unable to 

find Caldwell, Aruanno filed this petition for mandamus. He seeks an order from this 

Court (1) directing the USMS to serve the complaint instead on “the ‘MANY’ other 

defendants who[] were ‘PERSONALLY’ involved in this case;” (2) appointing counsel 

to find Officer Caldwell and to represent Aruanno in the District Court action; (3) 
3

removing District Judge Martini from the case; and (4) directing the District Court to 

expedite the case. 

The District Court docket now indicates, however, that the USMS successfully 

served Officer Caldwell on December 12, 2014, and Aruanno has since moved for entry 

of default against him. In light of these developments, Aruanno’s mandamus petition is 

substantially moot. 

To the extent that Aruanno seeks to serve any other named defendant, we note that 

those defendants were dismissed from the case in 2011. To the extent he seeks review of 

their dismissal, or review of Judge Martini’s order denying the motion for his recusal, 

mandamus is inappropriate. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in 

extraordinary circumstances, where the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain 

the relief sought. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378–79 (3d Cir. 

2005). It may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 

for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition. The request for appointment of counsel 

embedded in Aruanno’s petition is denied. Aruanno’s motions to expedite the petition 

are also denied.