Ernest Woodall v. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • BLD-149                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 22-1703
    ___________
    IN RE: ERNEST WOODALL,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (Related to Civ. No. 2-11-cv-00607)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    May 12, 2022
    Before: MCKEE 1, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: November 7, 2022)
    _________
    OPINION *
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Ernest Woodall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to order the
    District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas claim we have already rejected.
    We will deny the petition.
    1
    Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022.
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    Woodall is serving a sentence of 32 to 80 years in prison after being convicted of
    four counts of attempted murder. After unsuccessfully challenging his convictions in
    state court, he filed a petition pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     in the District Court, raising,
    inter alia, a claim based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). The District
    Court denied the petition, and we denied Woodall’s request for a certificate of
    appealability. See C.A. No. 13-4721. Woodall has since filed two unsuccessful
    mandamus petitions seeking to reargue his IAD claim. See C.A. Nos. 14-4838 & 16-
    2788. In the petition before us, Woodall once again seeks to reargue his IAD claim.
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we have the discretion to grant only
    when the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and no other adequate
    means to obtain it. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 
    353 F.3d 211
    , 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
    Woodall does not have a clear and indisputable right to a hearing on a meritless § 2254
    claim that has already been litigated and rejected. Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1703

Filed Date: 11/7/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2022