Case Name: In re: Matthew Richard PALMIERI, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-18
Citations: 474 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 12-1415
Parties: In re: Matthew Richard PALMIERI, Petitioner.
Judges: Before DAVIS, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 377–377

Head Matter:
In re: Matthew Richard PALMIERI, Petitioner.
No. 12-1415.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 11, 2012.
Decided: July 18, 2012.
Matthew Richard Palmieri, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before DAVIS, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Richard Palmieri has filed a petition for a writ of Quo Warranto and a writ of mandamus asking this court to order the Director of the Defense Security Service ("DSS") to demonstrate the authority for certain alleged actions taken against him and to provide him with due process in connection with the suspension of his security clearance.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Palmi-eri's petition, and therefore dismiss it. The All Writs Act vests all statutorily created courts, including this court, with authority to issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions .''See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006). However, Palmieri's petition, stemming from the suspension of a security clearance currently under review by the Department of Defense, fails to implicate the independent basis for our jurisdiction necessary for this court to proceed under the All Writs Act. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 n. 6 (3d Cir.1998) (stating that the All Writs Act requires that "the case may at some future time come within the court's appellate jurisdiction."). Accordingly, we dismiss Palmieri's petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED.
This disposition, of course, is without prejudice to any right Palmieri may have to seek mandamus relief in an appropriate district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2006).