Case Name: In re: Caroline P. AYRESFOUNTAIN Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 137 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 05-2411
Parties: In re: Caroline P. AYRESFOUNTAIN Petitioner.
Judges: Before SLOVITER, NYGAARD and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
In re: Caroline P. AYRESFOUNTAIN Petitioner.
No. 05-2411.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. June 16, 2005.
Decided June 28, 2005.
Caroline P. Ayres-Fountain, Hoekessin, DE, Pro se.
Laura M. Egerman, Farr, Burke, Gambacorta & Wright, Bellmawr, NJ; and John R. Weaver, Jr., Wilmington, DE, for Respondent.
Before SLOVITER, NYGAARD and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Caroline P. Ayres-Fountain has filed a mandamus petition requesting that we order the District Court to (1) vacate its order dismissing her complaint; (2) rule on her motion to amend; (3) order the state court proceedings stayed; and (4) hold an evidentiary hearing. Ayres-Fountain filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Delaware alleging fraud by Eastern Savings Bank and seeking reeission of a mortgage note. The District Court granted Eastern Savings's motion to dismiss. Ayres-Fountain filed a notice of appeal which was docketed at C.A. No. 05-2418.
The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir.1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for an appeal; only if a direct appeal is unavailable will the court determine whether a writ of mandamus will issue. See In Re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (1997).
With respect to her request that we order the District Court to stay the state court proceedings, that request is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283 ("A court of the United States may riot grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.") With respect to her requests that we order the District Court to vacate its order, rule on her motion to amend, and hold an evidentiary hearing, mandamus relief is not warranted because a direct appeal is available.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.