Case Name: In re: George JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-25
Citations: 594 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 14-4600
Parties: In re: George JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 104–104

Head Matter:
In re: George JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 14-4600.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. RApp. P. Feb. 12, 2015.
Filed: Feb. 25, 2015.
George E. Johnson, Jr., Philadelphia, PA, for pro se.
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner George Johnson, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of mandamus, "pursuant to the denial of a Petition and Motion for Relief from Judgment . of Sept 21, 2014, Goldberg, Judge at 13-5542 of the District Court [for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania] . at paper # 34 of the district court docket____" He seeks an order from this Court "remanding" the matter to the District Court, and directing the District Court Clerk to enter default against the defendants in the underlying action.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances, where the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir.2005). It may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004)). Petitioner has already filed an appeal from the District Court's July 21, 2014 order in the underlying action, seeking substantially the same relief that he seeks in his mandamus petition. That appeal is pending. See Johnson v. Rardin, C.A. No. 14-3398 (filed July 23, 2014).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
. Docket #34 in E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 13-cv-05542 is dated July 21, 2014, not September 21, 2014. Nothing has been entered on that docket since July 29, 2014.