James Richardson v.

ALD-130
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1507
___________
IN RE: JAMES RICHARDSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 10-4939)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 3, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 21, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
James Richardson, a federal prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking to compel the District Court to rule upon the mandamus
petition he filed with that Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. At bottom, Richardson
seeks an order requiring the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide him with
a list of the incentives that he claims are mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G). For
the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
Richardson filed his § 1361 mandamus petition in the District Court on September
28, 2010. On February 17, 2011, he filed his petition in this Court, arguing that the
District Court had “unduly delayed” ruling on his petition. However, on March 1, 2011,
the District Court denied his petition. As such, Richardson’s petition with this Court is
now moot.
Moreover, to the extent that Richardson asks this Court to consider the merits of
his underlying claim, a mandamus petition does not represent the proper vehicle. A writ
of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir.
1994). The petitioner must have no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired and
must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 403 (1976). Moreover, mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal; if a petitioner
can obtain relief by an ordinary appeal, a court will not issue the writ. In re Ford Motor
Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, there is no obstacle to Richardson’s
appealing the order that the District Court entered on March 1, 2011. See Arnold v.
BLaST Intermediate Unit 17, 843 F.2d 122, 124 (3d Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we will
deny Richardson’s petition.
2