In Re: Bell ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-17-2007
In Re: Bell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1440
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Bell " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1267.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1267
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.
DLD-155 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1440
________________
IN RE: JAMES SONNY BELL,
Petitioner
________________
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 06-cv-00575)
________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
March 15, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 17, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
James Sonny Bell, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
apparently alleging that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
improperly remanded to state court a case that he had removed to the federal district
court. For the reasons that follow, we will deny Bell’s petition.
Bell filed a document entitled “Notice of Removal” in the District Court, seeking
to remove the case J & J Mobile Home Park, Inc. V. Bell, CA #J0607047816 (Del. J.P.
Ct. Kent County). Because the document did not meet the requirements for removal, the
District Court ordered Bell to meet the requirements or face summary remand. After he
filed additional documents with the District Court, the Court found that he had still not
met the requisites for removal and thus summarily remanded the matter to the state court.
Bell filed a notice of appeal, docketed in this Court at C.A. No. 07-1057, and later filed
the instant petition for a writ of prohibition along with a motion to expedite.
Bell’s petition for a writ of prohibition is for the most part unclear. He appears to
allege that the Court of Chancery improperly held a trial in Krebs’ action against her
while her appeal of the District Court’s remand order was pending in this Court. To the
extent Bell seeks an order from this Court prohibiting the Delaware court from taking
some action, we lack jurisdiction to so order. See In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th
Cir. 2001) (stating that the court of appeals generally cannot use its power to issue
mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court litigation).
In addition, to the extent Bell seeks review of the District Court’s remand order, a
writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy because Bell may seek review through an
ordinary appeal. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314 (3d Cir. 1990). As
noted, Bell filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s remand order. That appeal is
pending, and will be decided in a separate opinion or order.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of prohibition.1
1
The Motion to Expedite is denied.
2