Brian Tyson v.

BLD-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2047
___________
IN RE: BRIAN TYSON,
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. 2-06-cv-00290)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 7, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 27, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Brian Tyson petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Magistrate Judge to
issue another report and recommendation based on the claims he raised in his habeas
corpus petition. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
In 2000, a Pennsylvania jury found Tyson guilty of third degree murder and
possession of an instrument of crime. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, and
1
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur in 2004. Tyson unsuccessfully sought
relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act.
In 2006, Tyson filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in District Court,
which dismissed the petition as an improper second or successive habeas petition. Tyson
appealed, and on September 15, 2009, we reversed and remanded for further
proceedings.
During the course of those proceedings, Tyson filed several different habeas
petitions and multiple amendments. The Magistrate Judge treated the habeas petition
filed on March 6, 2009, as the operative petition. On February 28, 2012, the Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissing the habeas petition with prejudice and without an
evidentiary hearing. Tyson then filed a “motion to dismiss, moot, or invalidate” the
report and recommendation as well as preliminary objections. Pursuant to two motions
for extensions of time filed by Tyson, the District Court directed him to file objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation by July 12, 2012, and to inform the
court by that date as to whether he needs additional time to respond to the report and
recommendation. On April 19, 2012, Tyson filed this petition for a writ of mandamus.
In his mandamus petition, Tyson argues that the Magistrate Judge misconstrued
the claims he presented in his habeas petition. He asserts that he is entitled to a report
and recommendation based on the claims he actually raised, rather than the present report
based on what he views as a mischaracterization of his claims. Accordingly, he asks us
to order the Magistrate Judge to issue such a report and recommendation.
2
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in extraordinary situations. Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). A party seeking mandamus must show that he
has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to the writ
is “clear and indisputable.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403
(1976) (citations omitted). A writ of mandamus should not issue where relief may be
obtained through an ordinary appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 223
(3d Cir. 1998).
Here, the District Court has yet to consider the report and recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. Tyson can still file objections to the report and recommendation,
which is the proper procedure for challenging the Magistrate Judge’s construction of his
claims. Accordingly, we will deny Tyson’s mandamus petition.
3