In Re: Alton Brown

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-29-2006
In Re: Alton Brown
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1677
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Alton Brown " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1369.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1369
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-49 (March, 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-1677
________________
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN,
Petitioner
__________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 03-cv-00289)
__________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
March 10, 2006
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Filed: March 29, 2006
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Alton Brown, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
asking us to reverse several rulings of the District Court in his civil rights action, and to
stay the District Court proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Brown filed a civil rights complaint claiming, among other things, that the
conditions of his confinement in the Long Term Segregation Unit at the State
1
Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania constituted cruel and unusual
punishment, and that correctional officers retaliated against him for his legal actions. In
March 2005, we vacated a District Court order dismissing Brown’s third amended
complaint for a failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, finding his pro se complaint intelligible and organized by claim.
In his mandamus petition, Brown complains that, on remand, the District
Court improperly denied his motion for appointment of counsel and motion to strike the
defendants’ answer to his complaint, refused to make explicit discovery rulings, and
improperly granted summary judgment for some of the defendants.
Although Brown contends that he is seeking an order requiring the District
Court to comply with our remand order, he is actually seeking review of the District
Court’s rulings. We will not issue a writ of mandamus if relief may be granted by way of
an ordinary appeal. In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d Cir. 1997). Brown may
seek relief by way of an ordinary appeal after the District Court enters a final order.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Brown’s
motion to stay the District Court proceedings is denied.
2