DL D- 2 0 9 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. 10- 2293

___________ I N R E : E DWARD J . BR OWN, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i v. N o. 3: 08- cv- 00203)

____________________________________ Sub mi tt e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

M ay27, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJudges

( O pi ni on fi l ed June 2, 2010)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n J ul y2008, Pet i t i onerE dw ar d J ames Brow n, a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, peti t i on ed the D i stri ctC ou rtfor a w ri tof h abeas co rpus, al l eging that hi s due p rocess r i ght s ar e bei ng vi ol at ed bya del ayi n hi s s t at e par ol e r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed B r ow n’ s pet i t i on, fi ndi ng thatB r ow n fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathe su f f e re da n yv io latio n o f

h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w ith re sp e c t to th e tim in g o f h is p a ro le2

r evoca t i on hear i ng. O n A pr i l 20, 2010, w e dec l i ned B r ow n’ s r eques tfora ce rt i fi cat e of app eal abil i ty . O n M ay7, 20 10 , B row n p et i t i on ed thi s C ou rtfor a w ri tof m and am us, r eques t i ng an or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s par ol e det ai nerw i th pr ej udi ce. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n extr aor di narycas es , s ee I n r e D i et D rugs Prod s. L i ab. L i t i g. , 41 8 F . 3d 37 2, 37 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ), as the p et i t i on er m ust demonstr at e thathe has “no otheradequa t e means ” t o obt ai n the r el i ef de s i r ed and a “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . St at e pr i s oner s chal l engi ng the deni al of par ol e mustpr ocee d byfi l i ng a habea s pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. See C oadyv. V aughn, 251 F. 3d 480, 486 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A s not ed above , the D i s tr i ctC ourthas pr evi ous l ydeni ed B r ow n’ s pet i t i on forhabea s , i n w hi ch he r eques t ed the s ame r el i ef he s eeks now . See B r ow n v. C om . of Pa. B d. of Pr ob. and Par ol e, 2010 W L 411832 ( W . D . Pa. 2010) . I n aff i rm i ng the D i s tr i ct C ourtor der , w e expl ai ned thatB r ow n fai l ed t o demonstr at e “as ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d e n ial o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” S e e C .A . 1 0 -1 4 2 4 . M a n d a m u s c a n n o t b e u se dto o b tain r el i ef thathas been s oughtand deni ed. See e. g. , U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M cQ ueen v. W a n g e lin , 5 2 7 F .2 d5 7 9 , 5 8 2 (8 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t m a n d a m u s w illn o t li e to d i s tu rb a f

i n a l o r d e ro n ah ab e a s p e t i t i o n ) . M o r e f u n d a me n t a l l y , t o th e e x t e n tth a tBr o wn s eeks an or derdi r ect i ng s t at e court s ors t at e off i ci al s t o t ake a ct i on, the r eques tl i esT o th e e x ten t th a t B ro w n is c laim in g av io latio n o f 3 7 P a . C o d e § 7 1 .4 , a c laim 1 bas ed on an e rr oneous appl i cat i on of s t at e l aw i s notcogni zabl e i n fede r al court . See T ay l orv. H orn, 504 F. 3d 416 ( 3d C i r . 1007) . M or eover , i tappear s thatno s t at e l aw has b e e n v io late d , as P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts h a v e h e ldth a t th e 1 2 0 -d a yp e rio df o r a p a ro le r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g ru n s f r o m th e t i m e ap r i s o n e ri s r e tu rn e dt o aP e n n s yl v a n i a f a c i l i ty, w hi ch i n B r ow n’ s cas e, has noty ethappene d. See D avi s v. C om . , 498 A . 2d 6, 8 ( Pa. C o m m w . C t. 1 9 8 5 ). 3 o u tsi d e the b o u n d s o f o u r m an d am u s jurisdicti o n as a fe d era l cou rt . S ee , e.g., In re 1 T ennant , 359 F. 3d 523, 531 ( D . C . C i r . 2004) ( expl ai ni ng thatm andamus j ur i s di ct i on l i es w ith th e c o u rtth a t h a s th e u ltim a te a u th o ri ty to re v ie w ad e c is io n ). B ecaus e B r ow n has nots how n a r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i tthati s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e, ” w e s hal l denyhi s m andamus pe t i t i on.