Rosalinda Carino v. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • ALD-021                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 22-2521
    ___________
    IN RE: ROSALINDA O. CARINO,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    November 3, 2022
    Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: November 10, 2022)
    _________
    OPINION*
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Rosalinda Carino, proceeding pro se, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    . For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    The nature of Carino’s request for mandamus relief is not entirely clear. She
    appears to allege that her properties at “81 & 79 Lake Street, Belleville, NJ” were the
    subject of fraudulent tax foreclosure proceedings, and that respondent, Essex County
    Sheriff Armando B. Fontoura, wrongfully evicted her from her home at 71 Franklin
    Street in Belleville. As relief, Carino appears to seek an order restoring title to the Lake
    Street properties back into her name and that of her spouse, Juan D. Carino, and
    “allowing [her] to reclaim residency” at her Franklin Street home. In a document filed in
    support of the mandamus petition, Carino asserts that the District Judge who dismissed
    Carino’s federal civil complaint filed against Fontoura for failure to state a claim for
    relief abused her authority and erred as a matter of law. 1 See D.N.J. Civ. No. 2:15-cv-
    06143. Carino requests that the Judge be censured, suspended, or removed from the
    bench.
    Section 1651 confers jurisdiction on this Court to issue a writ of mandamus “in aid
    of” our jurisdiction. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    . Mandamus provides a “drastic remedy that a
    court should grant only in extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to
    a judicial usurpation of power.” Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 
    74 F.3d 456
    , 461 (3d
    Cir. 1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify the Court’s use of
    this extraordinary remedy, Carino must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ
    1
    To the extent that Carino intended this document to be filed as a separate mandamus
    petition, she failed to submit the required certificate of service showing that a copy was
    served on the intended respondent. In any event, for the reasons discussed herein, Carino
    is not entitled to mandamus relief.
    and that she has no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired. Haines v. Liggett
    Group Inc., 
    975 F.2d 81
    , 89 (3d Cir. 1992). She cannot make this requisite showing.
    First, there is no pending action over which a writ of mandamus might aid our
    jurisdiction. See United States v. Christian, 
    660 F.2d 892
    , 894 (3d Cir. 1981) (explaining
    that, “[b]efore entertaining” a petition for a writ of mandamus, “we must identify a
    jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist”). The complaint against Fontoura
    was dismissed in 2015, see D.N.J. Civ. No. 2:15-cv-06143, ECF No. 6, and Carino’s
    belated appeal in that matter was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Carino
    v. Fontoura, C.A. No. 22-2159, Order entered October 14, 2022; see also In re Nwanze,
    
    242 F.3d 521
    , 524 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that, “given its drastic nature, a writ of
    mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary
    appeal”) (citation omitted). And, to the extent Carino seeks an order compelling a state
    actor to perform a state action, we lack authority to grant mandamus relief in any event.
    See In re Wolenski, 
    324 F.2d 309
    , 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam).2
    For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
    2
    To the extent that Carino seeks “Injunction Relief, Equity Relief Pursuant to the
    National Emergency Mandate,” the request is denied because, among other reasons, she
    provides no support or explanation for such relief.