Frederick Banks v. ( 2017 )

CLD-113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 16-4166
____________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Petitioner
__________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
January 26, 2017
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 31, 2017)
____________
OPINION*
____________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Frederick Banks, a federal prisoner at FCI-Butner, filed a document
entitled “Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Against the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” For
the following reasons, we will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
In his petition, Banks complains that an odor coming from the prison’s Food
Service Department’s kitchen, which prison staff allegedly stated is emanating from the
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
sewer, is making him “violently ill.” Banks seeks an order directing FCI-Butner, its
Warden, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) “to repair or replace and correct the problems
and pay damages to Banks.”
We lack jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The All Writs Act allows the
issuance of writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
We are bound by the extent of our “subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or
controversy.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). As Banks asks,
essentially, that we “compel an officer or employee of the United States or [an] agency
thereof to perform a duty” he alleges is owed to him, original jurisdiction is vested in the
District Court, not with us. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Massey v. United States, 581
F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (where “a statute specifically addresses the particular issue
at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling”).
Accordingly we will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
2