ALD
- 106 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 1249

___________ IN RE: LOUIS A. HYMAN , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 10

- cv
- 0 5464 ) District Judge: Ho norable Garrett E. Brown , Jr.

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

February 3, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 14, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Louis Hyman , a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States D istrict Court for the District of New Jersey to adjudicate his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. For the reasons that follow, w e will deny the mandamus petition. In 2003, Hyman pleaded guilty in District Court to conspiracy t o obstruct articles2

in interstate commerce, conspiracy to obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by robbery, and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Hyman was sentenced to an aggreg ate term of 176 months in prison. He did not file a direct appeal. Hyman filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in District Court, which was denied because it was untimely filed. We denied Hyman‟s request for a certificate of appe alability. Hyman then challenged his sentence under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, by filing a petition for a writ of audita querela in District Court.
The Distric t Court denied Hyman‟s petition and we affirmed. After filing another § 2255
motion in District Court without success, o n October 22, 2010, Hyman filed a petition for
a writ of error coram nobis in District Court , which remains pending

. Hyman now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to adjudicate
his petition . The writ of mandamus traditionally “ has been used „ to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. ‟” In re Patenaude , 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3 d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “ The writ is a drastic remedy that „ is seldom issued and its use is discouraged. ‟” Id

. (citations omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id

. at 141. Hyman has not made such a showing

. Aside from filing his petition for a writ of

error coram nobis, Hyman has not filed a motion to expedite a decision on his petition or3

sought any other relief in Distri ct Cour t. The District Court docket reflects that Hyman ‟s
friend filed a motion in December 2010 requesting the status of Hyman‟s case . H yman‟s
friend , however, does not appear to be an attorney and thus is not permitted to file
motions on his behalf. See Osei

- Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania , 937 F.2d
876 , 882 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding non

- attorney parent may not represent interests of child in federal court). Because Hyman has yet to request a decision on his petition in District Court, he has anothe r means to attain his desired relief

. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.