Court Opinion

ID: 9352473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 18:00:30.157281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:23.501782
License: Public Domain

CLD-030                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2867
                                       ___________

                             IN RE: JAMES COPPEDGE
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                 United States District Court for the District of Delaware
                      (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-01412)
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                               November 17, 2022
          Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and MCKEE, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed January 6, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       In 2021, pro se Petitioner James Coppedge filed an action in the District Court,

appearing to allege, inter alia, unlawful debt collection practices by defendants Orlans PC

and SLS, LLC. Coppedge also filed several motions, including a motion to void an

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
allegedly unlawful transfer of his property and motions for a default judgment. The

District Court dismissed Coppedge’s complaint, denied his motions, and subsequently

denied Coppedge’s motions for reconsideration. Coppedge’s appeal from the District

Court’s judgment is pending at C.A. No. 22-2717. Coppedge now petitions this Court for

a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to vacate its order dismissing his

complaint and denying his various motions.

       “Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in

extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of

power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify the Court’s use of this remedy,

Coppedge must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other

adequate means to obtain the relief desired. Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81,

89 (3d Cir. 1992). Coppedge has not met this burden. Notably, his mandamus petition

appears to raise issues that are the subject of his appeal that is pending before this Court,

and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d

211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”).

       Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.1

1
  Coppedge’s request to seal the supplement to his mandamus petition, filed at ECF No.
2, is denied, as Coppedge has failed to provide any justification for sealing the documents
at issue. See In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that “the
party seeking . . . the sealing of part of the judicial record bears the burden of showing
that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will
work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure” (citation and
                                                 2
internal quotation marks omitted)). Coppedge has likewise failed to provide any
justification for his request to stay proceedings, so that request is denied as well.
                                            3