Claude Townsend v. ( 2014 )

BLD-359 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3368
___________
IN RE: CLAUDE TOWNSEND,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-02158)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 14, 2014
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Opinion filed: August 27, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
On January 15, 2014, we issued a judgment vacating the District Court’s order
affirming the denial of Social Security benefits to petitioner Claude Townsend, and
directing the District Court to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security
for further proceedings. See Townsend v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
553 F. App’x 166 (3d Cir. 2014). In lieu of a mandate, a certified copy of the judgment
was filed on March 10, 2014. Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 79.4, the District Court notified the
1
parties that if the mandate or judgment “directs a disposition other than an affirmance, the
prevailing party shall submit an order implementing the mandate or judgment.”
Accordingly, Townsend, as the prevailing party, was required to submit to the District
Court a proposed order remanding the matter to the Commissioner. Apparently failing to
understand the notice, Townsend failed to comply. Instead, on July 24, 2014, Townsend
filed the instant mandamus petition, seeking an order directing the District Court to
remand the matter to the Commissioner.
Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to
“issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of (our) . . . jurisdiction and agreeable to
the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is
invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show
both a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other adequate means to
obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992).
Townsend clearly has an adequate means of obtaining the relief he desires. As the
District Court noted in its “Judicial Notice” to Townsend filed on July 29, 2014, upon the
filing of a proposed order by Townsend, the matter will be remanded to the
Commissioner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
2