Ravanna Bey v. ( 2013 )

DLD-319 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2897
___________
IN RE: RAVANNA S. BEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-02846)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 3, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Ravanna Stephens Bey, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for
a writ of mandamus compelling the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to
grant Bey’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ultimately dismissing the
ongoing criminal proceedings being conducted in the Superior Court of New Jersey for
Gloucester County, New Jersey. See D.N.J. 1:13-cv-02846.
In the criminal proceeding, Bey has asserted that the Superior Court of New Jersey
lacks jurisdiction over him.1 After the Superior Court of New Jersey rejected Bey’s
argument, Bey filed his habeas petition, seeking to have the District Court dismiss the
charges against him for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court dismissed Bey’s habeas
petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, and Bey has timely appealed from
that ruling. See D.N.J. 1:13-cv-02846. In his instant petition for a writ of mandamus,
Bey requests that this Court enter an order “directing the District Court to dismiss
Respondents [sic] claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . .”2 We interpret this
as a request that we order the District Court to grant Bey’s habeas petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
circumstances, and “should not be issued where relief can be obtained through an
ordinary appeal.” In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting
Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 462 (3d Cir.1996)). Accordingly, as Bey
can seek the requested relief through the appellate process, we deny Bey’s petition for a
writ of mandamus.
1
Bey has been indicted on two counts of committing forgery with purpose to defraud and
one count of theft by deception stemming from two episodes where Bey allegedly altered
checks and cashed them. In his petition, Bey asserts that the Superior Court of New
Jersey does not have jurisdiction over him, as he is a “Moorish American” citizen, and is
not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States per the laws of the
Moorish American National Republic, the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation.
2
Bey’s petition also seeks to have the District Court certify its rulings under 28 U.S.C. §
1292(b). As the District Court’s order is not an interlocutory decision, no certification is
2
needed to allow Bey to appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
3