2006 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 2-7-2006 

# In Re: J ohnn

y Lop e z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1108

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: J o hnn

y L opez " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1625. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/16251

HP S - 2 4 ( J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6 ) 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 . 06- 1108

________________ I N R E: J OH NN Y LO PEZ, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on fora W r i tof M andamus fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D istri ct of

D elaw are ( R el at ed t o D . D el . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00019)

_____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J anuary27, 2006 Bef or e : CH I EF J U D G E SC I RI CA , W EI S A N D G A RT H , CI RC U I T J U D G ES (F il ed : Fe b rua ry7 , 2 0 0 6 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

J ohnnyL opez ha s fi l ed a mandamus pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1651, s eeki ng t o have thi s C our ti ns t ructt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e t o compel r es pondent s i n t he under l y i ng habea s corpus pr ocee di ng t o “pr oduce evi dence ” us ed t o s ecur e a s ear ch of hi s hom e and s ubs equent l yconvi cthi m of a drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e i n 2003.T h e w ri t of m an d am u s is an ex tr ao rdin aryrem ed y . T o justi fythe C o u rt ’s us e of thi s r emedy , a pet i t i onerm us tdemonst r at e thathe has a cl earand i ndi s put abl e r i ght to issua n ce o f th e w ri t. K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 ); D e M a si v . W e iss , 6 6 9 F .2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). N o su c h sh o w in g h a s b e e n m a d e in th e in sta n t ca se . A re v iew o f th e re c o rd in th e u n d e rly in g p ro c e e d in g sh o w s th a t th e sta te cour tr ecor d w as fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton A ugus t1, 2005. I f Lopez bel i eves t hatt he s t at e courtr ecor d i s i ncompl et e, he i s cert ai nl yfr ee t o br i ng t hatconce r n t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s at t ent i on. A nychal l enge t o t he ac tual s t at e courtconvi ct i on t hati s t he s ubj ectof t he pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, how ever , m us tfi r s tbe r es ol ved byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . L opez w i l l have a n oppor tuni t yforappel l at e r evi ew i n t hi s C our taft ert he D i s t r i ctC our thas ent er ed a f i nal or derdi s pos i ng of hi s § 2254 pet i t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on.



### 2