Arthur D'Amario, III v. ( 2012 )

CLD-184 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1997
___________
IN RE: ARTHUR D’AMARIO, III,
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. Crim. No. 06-cr-00112)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 24, 2012
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 14, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
In 2006, D’Amario was convicted in the District Court of threatening a United
States Judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), and he was sentenced to 84
months’ imprisonment. Recently, D’Amario filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that he is scheduled to be released from prison in June 2012, although D’Amario
argues that he should have been released already, and that Judge Diamond, who presided
over D’Amario’s jury trial, has conspired with United States Probation Officer Scherrer
to deny D’Amario the opportunity to transition into a halfway house and to be released
into the jurisdiction of his choice. D’Amario asks this Court to (1) compel Judge
Diamond to cease interfering with the Bureau of Prisons’s decision about where to
release D’Amario, and (2) to compel Officer Scherrer to cease falsifying reports and
threatening D’Amario, particularly because, in D’Amario’s view, his sentence has
already expired.
Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that we award only when a petitioner
demonstrates, among other things, a “clear and indisputable” right to relief. In re
Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006). Mandamus lies only when
there is no other remedy to obtain the relief sought. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for
S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). D’Amario has plainly failed to meet this high
standard. His petition includes no evidence, beyond his bare allegations, that either Judge
Diamond or Officer Scherrer has acted inappropriately in any respect.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
2