`DLD-160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOT PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`___________
`
`No. 18-3652
`___________
`
`IN RE: RAMSEY RANDALL,
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`____________________________________
`
`On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
`____________________________________
`
`Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
`April 11, 2019
`Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, Jr., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
`
`(Opinion filed: August 19, 2019)
`___________
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM
`
`OPINION*
`___________
`
`Ramsey Randall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order the
`
`state court to rule on a pretrial motion in criminal proceedings against him. We will deny
`
`his petition.
`
`A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
`
`circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
`
`
`* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
`
`
`
`
`
`2005). Generally, mandamus is a “means ‘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.’” United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 893 (3d Cir. 1981) (quoting
`
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943)). A writ should not issue unless
`
`the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain the relief” sought, and has shown
`
`that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`418 F.3d at 378-79 (quoting Cheney v. United States, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).
`
`It is well-settled that we may consider a petition for a writ of mandamus only if the
`
`action involves subject matter that may at some time come within this Court’s appellate
`
`jurisdiction. See Christian, 660 F.2d at 894-95. Here, however, Randall does not allege
`
`any act or omission by a federal District Court within this Circuit over which we could
`
`exercise authority by way of mandamus. Nor does he allege any act or omission by a
`
`federal officer, employee, or agency that a District Court might have mandamus
`
`jurisdiction to address in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
`
`Instead, Randall’s original mandamus petition asks us to order a state court to rule
`
`on a motion filed in that court. We lack the authority to grant such relief. See In re
`
`Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[I]n the ordinary course of events, federal
`
`courts (except for the Supreme Court) lack appellate jurisdiction over their state
`
`counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally inappropriate.”); see also White
`
`
`constitute binding precedent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (federal courts lack
`
`jurisdiction to direct a state court to rule on habeas petition). Further, it appears that the
`
`state court has since ruled on Randall’s motion, so that even if we had the authority to
`
`order the state court to act, Randall’s request would be moot. See In re Orthopedic Bone
`
`Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 94 F.3d 110, 110 (3d Cir. 1996); cf. In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d
`
`1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur
`
`during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting any
`
`effective relief.”).
`
`In his amended mandamus petition, Randall appears to argue that the delayed
`
`decision on his pretrial motion violated his due process rights and he asks us to vacate his
`
`conviction and sentence. A claim by a prisoner that “he is in custody pursuant to the
`
`judgment of a State court . . . in violation of the Constitution” is properly brought in a
`
`petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Randall currently has such a petition pending.
`
`Because he had “other adequate means to attain the relief” sought, mandamus relief is not
`
`appropriate.
`
`Accordingly, we will deny the original petition and the amended petition.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
