In Re: Corliss

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-12-2005
In Re: Corliss
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4394
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Corliss " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 126.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/126
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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-1 (November 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4394
________________
IN RE: JUSTIN M. CORLISS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 03-cv-02201)
_________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
November 4, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
Filed: December 12, 2005
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Justin M. Corliss seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to act on his motions
filed in his habeas corpus proceedings. Specifically, in May 2005, Corliss filed a motion
to reconsider the District Court’s April 26, 2005 order denying habeas relief, as well as a
motion seeking the District Judge’s recusal. Stating that the matters remained
1
unresolved, Corliss submitted a mandamus petition in September 2005.
Corliss’s motion for reconsideration and recusal motion were pending at
the time this mandamus petition was filed. However, on September 23, 2005, the District
Court denied both motions. Thus, the matter before us is now moot. To the extent that
Corliss seeks relief relating to the merits of the claims raised in his habeas petition,
mandamus is not an alternative to an appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223
(3d Cir. 1998) (“a writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained
through an ordinary appeal”).
We note that Corliss refers to the mandamus action that he previously filed
in this Court, docketed at C.A. No. 05-1895, in which he sought to compel the District
Court to rule on his then-pending habeas petition. When that mandamus request became
moot upon the District Court’s denial of habeas relief, Corliss requested a refund of his
filing fee. We denied the refund request in our May 31, 2005 order. In his current
mandamus petition, Corliss again seeks reimbursement of the previously-paid filing fee.
We again deny this request.
We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.