In Re: Davis

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-3-2005
In Re: Davis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2443
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Davis " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 744.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/744
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.
CPS-281 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 04-2443
________________
IN RE: PHILIP WILL DAVIS,
Petitioner
________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 96-cr-00185-17)
________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
JUNE 23, 2005
Before: ALITO, MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed:August 3, 2005)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Philip Will Davis seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to make a different
determination on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court
denied relief, concluding that Davis’s motion was untimely under section 2255’s one-year
limitations period. In his mandamus petition, Davis asks this Court to compel the District
Court to apply the one-year limitations period in a different manner, thereby allowing him
to bring his claim under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), in a timely section 2255
motion. Davis has submitted a letter dated July 19, 2004, pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, citing Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531(2004), as it pertains to his claim under Ring.
The remedy of mandamus is appropriate to aid this Court’s jurisdiction in
extraordinary circumstances only. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d
Cir. 1998). To prevail, a petitioner must show, among other things, that there are no other
available means to obtain the relief he seeks. Id. Significantly, mandamus is not an
alternative to an appeal; because of its drastic nature, “a writ of mandamus should not be
issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal.” Id.We observe that Davis has appealed the District Court’s order, and his application
for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) is currently pending in this
Court in C.A. No. 04-1604. Thus, Davis clearly has available means of obtaining relief
other than by way of a writ of mandamus.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2