In Re: Carol Dixon ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-13-2007
In Re: Carol Dixon
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1348
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Carol Dixon " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1634.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1634
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-124 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-1348
________________
IN RE: CAROL A. DIXON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for Eastern
District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 01-cv-00619)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 8, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: February 13, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Carol Dixon has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Dixon makes several
allegations regarding her fear of the “mob” and her belief that she and her family need to
be protected. She has attached various documents referencing, inter alia, social security
and public assistance benefits, travel accommodations for her daughter and
communications with the United States Marshals Service. She appears to request that the
court enforce certain “default judgments” and award her $300 billion. We must note that
her petition is barely comprehensible and at times illegible.
A writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v.
Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the
petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to
obtain the desired relief, and further must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A writ is
not a substitute for an appeal; only if a direct appeal is unavailable will the court
determine whether a writ of mandamus will issue. See In Re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d
954, 957 (1997).
Dixon’s petition is woefully deficient. To the extent that her allegations are
somehow related to pending or closed lawsuits, Dixon has failed to show that alternate
remedies do not exist. Dixon had the opportunity to request relief during the pendency of
these lawsuits and to appeal any adverse orders that were issued. Moreover, insofar as
any of the allegations set forth in her petition have not been raised previously, Dixon may
do so by initiating an action in the appropriate court. She has thus failed to demonstrate
that she is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
2