Court Opinion

ID: 9949806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 17:01:18.095514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:38.178075
License: Public Domain

ALD-067                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 24-1168
                                       ___________

                     In re: HARISADHAN PATRA; PETULA VAZ,
                                                Petitioners
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                          (Related to Civ. No. 4-14-cv-02265)
                      ____________________________________

                      Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                    February 8, 2024

    Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: March 12, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________
PER CURIAM

       Harisadhan Patra and Petula Vaz (“Petitioners”) have filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

       In 2014, Petitioners brought a civil rights complaint against their employer and

other defendants. The procedural history of that litigation and the details of Petitioner’s

claims are well known to the parties, set forth in our prior opinion, and need not be

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
discussed at length. See Patra v. Pennsylvania State Sys. Of Higher Educ., No. 20-2320,

2023 WL 4618292 (3d Cir. July 19, 2023). Briefly, in relevant part, the defendants

moved for summary judgment. In response, Petitioners argued, inter alia, that defendants

had submitted falsified evidence. The District Court granted judgment in favor of the

defendants. On appeal, Petitioners argued throughout their brief that defendants had

committed fraud on the court. We affirmed the District Court’s judgment. Id. At *6.

Petitioners then filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc as well as a motion for

permission to file a motion alleging fraud on the court by the defendants. We denied the

petition and the motion. Petitioners filed a motion to stay the mandate, again alleging

fraud on the court. We denied the motion to stay. Petitioners then filed this “Emergency

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to Grant Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs (Setting

Aside Prior Judgments) and Other Relief.”

       Petitioners allege that the defendants in their District Court proceedings committed

fraud because they used falsified evidence to obtain summary judgment in their favor.

They request that we set aside the prior judgments, grant judgment in their favor, and

order injunctive relief.

       Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a federal court may issue a writ to aid in its jurisdiction.

Traditionally, the writ of mandamus has been used “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.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967). Here, the District

Court proceedings have ended, and there are no motions pending before it. Petitioners do

not describe any action the District Court has taken outside of its jurisdiction or any

                                              2
authority it is refusing to exercise. They do not explain how issuing the writ they seek

will “aid in [our] jurisdiction.”

       Moreover, 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, petitioners must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate

means to obtain the desired relief and must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to

the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A petition for a

writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212

(3d Cir. 2006). Here, the Petitioners had the remedy of appealing the District Court’s

judgment against them, and they, in fact, availed themselves of that remedy. That the

result of the appeal was not favorable to them does not entitle them to relitigate their

claims via a mandamus petition.

       For the above reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.

                                              3