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- 1925

___________ DE RR I CK L AKE I T H B RO WN, A ppel l ant

v. M A R Y E . D ’A N D R E A , U .S .D .C ., C le rk ; C O R E Y W IM M E R , U .S .D .C ., C lerk ; L Y N D A H A N N IC K , U .S .D .C ., C lerk ; U. S . P . L E WI S BU RG M AI L RO OM CL E RK S

____________________________________ 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 A ct i on N o. 10- cv- 00501 ( H o n o r ab l e R i c h a r dP . C o n ab o y)

________________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and V A N A S K IE, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober4, 2010)

_________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. O n M ar ch 5, 2010, D err i ck Lakei th B r ow n fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof man d a mu s i n th e Di s tr i c tCo u rt . T h e p e t i t i o n r e f e rr e dt o two c i v i l r i g h t s c a s e s th a tBr o wn had i ni t i at ed i n D i s tr i ctC ourt . See B r ow n v. K us t off, etal . , 3: C V - 10- 200 and B r ow n v.2

B led so e , et a l., 3 :C V -1 0 -2 5 6 3 . T h e c o u rt h a dd ism iss e db o th c a se s w ith o u t p re ju d ice in J anuaryand February2010, r es pect i vel y . I n the mandam us pet i t i on, B r ow n s t at ed thathe h a df iled n o tice s o f

ap p e a l in b o th c a se s, a n dc laim e dth a t d e f e n d a n ts c o n sp ire dto o b stru ct an dinterfe re w ith h is ap p ell ate righ ts. H e sp ec u lat ed that their ac ti o n s w ere r et al i at oryand s ugges t ed thattheyhad des tr oy ed hi s appea l s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtnot ed thatthe docke ts how ed thatB r ow n had i ndeed f i l ed t i m el ynot i ces of appe al i n eac h cas e, w h ich w e re still p e n d in g . A s s u c h , h e c o u ldn o t sh o w th a t h e h a d“ n o o th e r a d e q u a te m e a n s ” to o b ta in th e re lie f d e s ir e d . M a d d e n v . M y e rs , 1 0 2 F .3 d7 4 , 7 9 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T hus , on M ar ch 25, 2010, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the pet i t i on as m er i t l es s . B r ow n, p ro c e e d in g p ro s e , f

ile da tim e ly ap p e a l. T h is C o u rt d e n ied B ro w n ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e din f o rm a p a u p e ris (“ IF P ” ) in h is appea l fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s fi r s tci vi l r i ght s cas e. See C . A . 10- 1929. T hen, i n M ay 2 0 1 0 , we d i s mi s s e dth e ap p e a l f o rf a i l u r e t o p a yth e f

i l i n g f e e . I n J u n e 2 0 1 0 , we di s m i s s ed B r ow n’ s appea l i n the s econd c as e, forfai l ur e t o fi l e a mot i on fori m m i nent dangerort o paythe fi l i ng fee . C . A . 10- 1235. B r ow n fi l ed a mot i on t o r econs i derand a for an ex t ensi on of ti m e t o fil e the im m i nen tdan ger m oti on , w hich w e con strued as a m o tio n to re -o p e n th e ap p e a l. B ro w n h a s n o t yetf ile dth e im m in e n t d a n g e r m o tio n . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng a mandam us pet i t i on. See H arm on C ove C ondom i ni um A s s ’n v . M a rs h , 8 1 5 F .2 d9 4 9 , 9 5 1 (3 dC ir . 1 9 8 7 ).3

U p o n re v iew , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t B ro w n w a s n o t en tit led to m and am us rel i ef. M and am us i s a dras t i c rem edyavail able onl yi n ex traor dinarycases, s ee I n r e D i etD rugs Pr ods . L i ab. L i t i g. , 418 F. 3d 372, 378 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , as the pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e thathe has “no otheradequa t e means ” t o obt ai n the r el i ef des 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, 102 F. 3d at 79. A w r i ti s nota s ubs t i tut e foran appe al . I n r e K ens i ngt on I nt ’ l L t d. , 353 F. 3d 211, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . B r ow n’ s appea l s i n hi s tw o ci vi l r i ght s cas es w er e pendi ng atthe t i m e he f i l ed hi s pet i t i on form andamus. A s s uch, he cannotdemonstr at e thathe had no o ther m ea n s to o b tai n the d esired reli ef. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.