2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-8-2012

In Re: Jay Thomas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-4498

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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: Jay Thomas " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1440.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1440
BLD-091 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4498

___________

IN RE: JAY L. THOMAS,

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. 2-11-cv-03905)

____________________________________

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

January 20, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 8, 2012)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

Jay Thomas, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking 

this Court to direct the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New 

Jersey to enter a default judgment in a civil action Thomas filed in that court. For the 

reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Thomas filed a complaint in District Court against Northeastern University. On 

July 27, 2011, the District Court dismissed Thomas’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2

§ 1915(e). Thomas appealed. While his appeal was pending, Thomas filed motions for 

leave to file an amended complaint and a motion for a default judgment. On December 

15, 2011, the District Court dismissed Thomas’ motions for lack of jurisdiction in light of 

his pending appeal. Thomas appealed the December 15, 2011, order. On January 10, 

2012, this Court affirmed the District Court’s July 27, 2011, order dismissing Thomas’ 

original complaint. His appeal of the December 15, 2011, order is pending.

On December 20, 2011, Thomas filed in this Court a “Petition or Application for 

Writ of Madamus[sic] for Default Judgment 28 USC 1651” asking us to compel the Clerk 

of the District Court to enter a default judgment in his underlying action. 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 (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.

Thomas has not made such a showing. Thomas’ appeal of the District Court order

denying his motion for a default judgment is pending. Because Thomas has other 

adequate means to attain relief, a writ of mandamus is not available. 

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.