In Re: Campbell

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-28-2006
In Re: Campbell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2759
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Campbell " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 820.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/820
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.
APS-246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 06-2759
________________
IN RE: DENNIS JOHN CAMPBELL, ET AL.,
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. No. 01-cv-04517)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
June 15, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, McKEE AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 28, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioners Dennis John Campbell and Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Petitioners seek review of
various orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
We will deny the mandamus petition.
In 2003, petitioners filed an amended complaint against the United States Postal
Service and the Postmaster General, seeking damages for violations of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. On October 18, 2005, the District Court granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims against them except a claim based on derogatory
employment references. The District Court also denied petitioners’ request for
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Petitioners appealed, and on March 15,
2006, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See C.A.
No. 05-4794. In their mandamus petition, petitioners seek reversal or vacation of various
orders of the District Court in this civil action, including the October 18 order.
The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances.
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). In order to ensure that mandamus is
sparingly granted, a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate that no
other adequate means are available to obtain the desired relief and that the right to
issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daifon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 35 (1980). A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal; if a petitioner
can obtain relief by an ordinary appeal, a court will not issue the writ. See In re Ford
Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d Cir. 1997).
Here, petitioners have an alternative means to raise challenges to the District
Court’s orders in the form of a proper appeal. The appeal may be commenced after the
District Court has entered a final and appealable order. Accordingly, the petition for a
writ of mandamus will be denied.
2