Case Name: In re Michael Evan KEELING, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-09
Citations: 518 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 13-1688
Parties: In re Michael Evan KEELING, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
In re Michael Evan KEELING, Petitioner.
No. 13-1688.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. April 11, 2013.
Opinion Filed May 9, 2013.
Michael Evan Keeling, Dallas, PA, pro se.
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Michael Evan Keeling petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we order the District Court to "entertain" his filings in three different matters. He complains that the District Court refused to do so when it dismissed his eases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be "used . only 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.' " Id. (citations omitted). Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 867, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (citations omitted); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996).
By his phrasing, Keeling tries to suggest that the District Court refused to consider filings that were properly before it. However, that is simply not the case. A review of the relevant court records reveals that the District Court did, in fact, entertain his filings. Although Keeling disagrees with the result in those cases, his disagreement is a matter for appeal, not for mandamus relief. We will deny his petition.