E. Thomas Scarborough, III v. ( 2023 )

HLD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2021
___________
IN RE: E. THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, III,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 5:18-cv-02436)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 29, 2023
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed July 28, 2023)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner E. Thomas Scarborough, III, seeks a writ of mandamus. Because
Scarborough has not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his
petition.
Scarborough’s mandamus petition is the second he has filed in connection with a
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
civil rights lawsuit that he initiated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against two Pennsylvania state courts. Scarborough alleged that
his civil rights were violated in the course of a state court custody matter. The District
Court dismissed the case in 2019, and we affirmed that decision. See Scarborough v. Ct.
Com. Pl. of Northampton Cnty., 794 F. App’x 238, 240 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
Scarborough filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(d)(3), which the District Court denied; Scarborough did not appeal.
Scarborough then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e), which remains pending.
In his present mandamus petition, Scarborough seeks four forms of relief.1 He
asks us to: 1) investigate allegations about his state court proceeding; 2) vacate a state
court custody order; 3) amend the defendants in his case; and 4) “remand to an interested
forum.” Pet. at 3.
A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in
extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of
power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted). Scarborough fundamentally challenges several state court and District Court
rulings in his petition, but such arguments do not warrant mandamus relief. See
1
Scarborough previously sought mandamus relief in February 2023, which we denied.
See In re Scarborough, No. 23-1284, 2023 WL 2263028, at *1 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2023)
(non-precedential).
2
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (stating that a mandamus
petitioner must show that “no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires”)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir.
1996) (explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal). Further, we lack
mandamus authority to intervene in state court matters. See In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981) (“A federal court . . . ordinarily may not
issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to
it.”).
Accordingly, we will deny Scarborough’s petition.
3