2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-26-2011

In Re: Doris Harman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1491

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Doris Harman " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1371.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1371
GLD-159 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1491

___________

IN RE: DORIS HARMAN, JAMES D. HARMAN, 

CITIZENS WATER COMPANY OF SPRING GLEN

Petitioners

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-02398)

____________________________________

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

April 7, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 26, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Doris Harman, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

asking this Court to direct law enforcement agencies to enforce the law and arrest persons 

who violated the federal mail fraud laws. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the 

mandamus petition.1

 

1

To the extent Harman, who is not an attorney, purports to file her petition on behalf of 

the other parties named in the caption, she may not do so. See Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College 

of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 883 (3d Cir. 1991); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 
2

Harman and her husband filed a complaint in the United States District Court for 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Hegins Hubley Authority, a public 

water company, and its attorney, Paul Datte, illegally disconnected the main water line 

between Citizens Water Company and the village of Spring Glen, Pennsylvania, 

requiring the Harmans to supply water from an alternate source to a property they owned. 

See Harman, et al. v. Datte, et al., M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-02398, Complaint. On 

September 8, 2010, the District Court granted the defendants‟ motions to dismiss the 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Harmans appealed 

the District Court‟s order. The parties recently filed their appellate briefs and the 

Harmans‟ appeal is currently pending. See C.A. No. 10-3867.

Shortly after the Harmans filed their brief, Doris Harman filed the present petition 

for a writ of mandamus asking us to direct “the proper enforcement agencies to enforce 

the law and arrest the persons responsible for violations of Federal Mail fraud laws.” 

Petition at 1. In her brief in support of her mandamus petition, Harman argues that the 

Authority and Datte broke the law and that the District Court did not take into account the 

defendants‟ illegal acts, which resulted in violations of their rights to due process. 

Harman also argues that the District Court failed to consider the defendants‟ contract 

violation and erred in ruling before discovery was complete. 

The writ of mandamus traditionally “has been used „to confine an inferior court to 

 

(3d Cir. 1966) (per curiam). We note that Harman and her husband were previously notified in a 

related pending appeal in this Court that Mr. Harman could not represent Citizens Water 

Company because he is not an attorney. See C.A. No. 10-3867.
3

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 (3d 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.

Harman has not made such a showing. Harman‟s arguments are properly raised in 

her appeal from the District Court‟s order dismissing her complaint. Her arguments do 

not provide a basis for mandamus relief, which is not a substitute for an appeal. In re 

Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998).

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