Francisco Lanzo v.

CLD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3644
___________
IN RE: FRANCISCO LANZO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00449)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 20, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 23, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
State prisoner Francisco Lanzo, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus in
connection with a habeas petition he filed in the District Court. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny Lanzo’s mandamus petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In June 2016, Lanzo filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the
District Court. On November 29, 2018, Lanzo filed this mandamus petition, asking that
we direct the District Court to rule on his habeas petition. Lanzo also put forth arguments
as to why this Court should grant his habeas petition. A week later, on December 7,
2018, the District Court issued a memorandum and order, denying Lanzo’s habeas
petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Petitioners must
establish that they have “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that
they have a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102
F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Lanzo does not meet the standard for mandamus relief. To the extent that Lanzo
asks us to order the District Court to rule on his habeas petition, he has already received
the relief that he requested. Furthermore, although he believes he was entitled to a
different outcome in the District Court, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d at 378-79.
Accordingly, we will deny Lanzo’s petition.
2