Amir Bey v.

BLD-050 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3661
___________
IN RE: AMIR MAJIKE BEY,
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. 12-cv-01531)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 29, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : December 19, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Amir Majike Bey, an inmate in Pennsylvania, has filed in this Court a pleading
titled “Writ of Error,” which has been docketed as a petition for a writ of mandamus
under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Bey is the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding pending
before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Bey
v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 12-cv-01531. In this mandamus
proceeding, Bey claims that he has “put in several affidavits to the clerk” but “somebody
in the office of the clerk tampered with the evidence.” Petition at 3. Bey refers in
particular to his “demand for a writ of habeas corpus and demand to sue in quo
warranto.” Id. Bey asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the clerk “to
file, index, and record the above mentioned documents.” Id.Mandamus relief is available in extraordinary circumstances only. In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must show
that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s
right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under
the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010)
(per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). Bey has not satisfied these standards.
The District Court’s docket reflects that Bey filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus on or about August 6, 2012. Bey also submitted a document titled
“Petition for Leave to Sue in Quo Warranto Against Corporation Unlawfully Practicing
Profession.” The habeas petition and “quo warranto” attachment appear on the docket as
entry no. 1. The District Court entered an order requiring Bey to pay the filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Bey responded by moving for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered an order
noting that Bey’s habeas petition was not submitted on the required form, and that he
failed to submit an inmate account statement to support the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Magistrate Judge afforded Bey time to correct these defects. On or about
September 18, 2012, Bey filed a habeas petition on the standard form provided by the
2
Court. The Magistrate Judge then afforded Bey more time to submit his inmate account
statement. On November 14, 2012, Bey filed an account statement. Bey’s habeas
proceeding remains ongoing before the District Court.
Bey’s request that we issue a writ of mandamus and direct the clerk “to file, index,
and record” his original habeas petition and “quo warranto” document is denied. Those
documents are part of the district court record, and there is no evidence suggesting that
they have been “tampered with” or handled improperly. Bey, moreover, has since filed a
habeas petition on the standard form, which would supersede his original habeas petition.
Bey has not shown a clear and indisputable right to the relief he seeks.
Insofar as Bey is objecting to the District Court’s order requiring that he re-file the
habeas petition on the proper form, or that he submit an inmate account statement,
mandamus is not the proper vehicle to raise those objections. Bey can challenge the
District Court’s interlocutory rulings by taking an appeal after entry of a final judgment,
should an adverse judgment be entered against him. “In accordance with our respect for
the final judgment rule, ‘a writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be
obtained through an ordinary appeal.’” In re Baldwin, --- F.3d ---, ---, 2012 WL
5897581, at *3 (3d Cir. Nov. 26, 2102) (quoting In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214,
223 (3d Cir. 1998)). A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal. In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
For these reasons, we will deny Bey’s petition for writ of mandamus. Bey’s
pending motion titled “A Security (15 U.S.C.) Claim of Commercial Lien” is denied.
3