Marcus Wallace v.

DLD-068 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4379
___________
IN RE: MARCUS L. WALLACE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Related to M.D. Pa. No. 3-10-cv-01309
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 16, 2010
Before: BARRY, FISHER AND STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 11, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Marcus Wallace, has been charged in the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, with, among other things, first and second degree
murder, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief. Wallace is currently awaiting trial on
those and other charges in three separate criminal cases, all before the Court of Common
Pleas. He has filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court which
appears to be requesting that we compel the Honorable Richard J. Walsh of the Court of
1
Common Pleas to grant a discovery motion, exclude evidence, order the Government to
produce forensic reports, order new forensic tests, and “quash” a defective preliminary
hearing transcript. Because we lack jurisdiction to grant that relief, we will dismiss the
petition.
Under the All Writs Act, Congress has conferred jurisdiction on this Court to
issue writs of mandamus only “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). It is thus
well-settled that we may issue a writ of mandamus only if there is an independent basis
for subject matter 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”).
There is no such basis here. Wallace does not allege any action or omission by a
United States District Court within this Circuit over which we might exercise our
supervisory authority by way of mandamus. Cf. id. at 895 (“‘The focal question posed
for a Court of Appeals by a petition for the issuance of a writ is whether the action of the
District Court tends to frustrate or impede the ultimate exercise by the Court of Appeals
of its appellate jurisdiction granted in some other provision of the law.’”) (citation
omitted) (emphasis added). Nor does he allege any action or omission by a federal
officer, employee, or agency that a United States District Court might have mandamus
jurisdiction to address in the first instance; see 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an
2
officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to
the plaintiff.”) (emphasis added).
Instead, Wallace asks us to exercise our mandamus jurisdiction over a state court
to compel it to rule on trial issues. We do not have jurisdiction to grant that request. See
In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (explaining that District
Court “had no jurisdiction” to “issue a writ of mandamus compelling action by a state
official”); see also White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (explaining that
federal courts “lack[ ] jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty”); Demos v.
United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991)
(“[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.”).
Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief that Wallace requests,
we will dismiss his petition.
3