Case Name: IN RE: Frederick H. BANKS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-31
Citations: 674 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 16-4166
Parties: IN RE: Frederick H. BANKS, Petitioner
Judges: Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
IN RE: Frederick H. BANKS, Petitioner
No. 16-4166
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21 January 26, 2017
(Opinion filed: January 31, 2017)
Frederick H. Banks, Pro Se
United States Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Respondents
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Frederick Banks, a federal prisoner at FCI-Butner, filed a document entitled "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Against the Federal Bureau of Prisons." For the following reasons, we will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
In his petition, Banks complains that an odor coming from the prison's Food Service Department's kitchen, which prison staff allegedly stated is emanating from the sewer, is making him "violently ill." Banks seeks an order directing FCI-But-ner, its Warden, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) "to repair or replace and correct the problems and pay damages to Banks."
We lack jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The All Writs Act allows the issuance of writs "necessary or appropriate in aid of' our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. We are bound by the extent of our "subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy." United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009). As Banks asks, essentially, that we "compel an officer or employee of the United States or [an] agency thereof to perform a duty" he alleges is owed to him, original jurisdiction is vested in the District Court, not with us. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (where "a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling").
Accordingly we will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
This disposition is not án opinion of- the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.