In Re: Ronald Dandar

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-22-2006
In Re: Ronald Dandar
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3326
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Ronald Dandar " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 561.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/561
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.
DPS-295 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-3326
________________
IN RE: RONALD G. DANDAR,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-00472J)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 10, 2006
Before: FUENTES, VANANTWERPEN AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed:August 22, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Ronald Dandar asks this Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the
District Court to order the United States Marshals Service to serve process on his petition
for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although we are troubled by the District
Court’s actions with respect to denying Dandar’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP), the conduct does not justify an issuance of a writ. We will deny the petition.
I.
Dandar is a Pennsylvania inmate serving the remainder of a fifteen to thirty year
sentence after a parole violation for apparently stalking and harassing a high school
classmate. In 2005, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court. He
also submitted an application to proceed IFP. The District Court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, who recommended denying application. She
concluded that Dandar had an average monthly prison account balance of $46.79 and
paying the $5.00 filing fee “would not deprive him of any necessities of life at the
Prison.” Dandar objected to the recommendation arguing that he is pursuing other cases
and is required to pay postage and copying fees, which regularly deplete his account. On
January 25, 2006, the District Court overruled the objections and adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation.
On February 1, 2006, Dandar filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his
IFP request. This Court remanded the case to the District Court for a determination as to
whether a COA should issue. The District Court amended its January 25 order, denying a
COA. Despite a February 9, 2006 account balance of -$1.04, Dandar submitted the $5.00
District Court filing fee on February 21, 2006. The District Court docketed Dandar’s §
2254 petition.
On March 6, 2006, the District Court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve
process on the Respondents. Several months later, Dandar filed a mandamus petition,
claiming that the Marshals Service still would not serve his petition. Relying on its
March 6 order, the District Court denied the petition as moot. On July 19, 2006, the
2
Marshals Service informed the District Court that it would not serve process because the
$24.00 service fee had not yet been paid. Dandar then filed the instant mandamus petition
as well as a petition in the District Court on August 2, 2006.
II.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which should be invoked only in
extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).
Dandar must show that he has an indisputable right to the writ and that there exists no
other adequate remedy. See Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992).
We find no basis for finding that Dandar is currently entitled to the writ. The
District Court was presumable unaware until recently that the Marshals Service had not
served the Respondents. In Dandar’s most recent filing with the District Court, Dandar
explains his inability to pay and presents a copy of this Court’s order granting IFP on
appeal. The District Court could reasonably construe the petition as also requesting IFP
status for the purpose of serving process, or Dandar could simply file a separate motion to
proceed IFP for the purpose of serving process. If the District Court denies his IFP
request, the order will likely be immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order
doctrine. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311 (3d Cir. 2001); see also
Roberts v. United States Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950); Cohen v. Beneficial Indust.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949) (establishing the collateral order doctrine).
Although we understand Dandar’s frustration with this process, he fails to show an
indisputable right to the writ. His petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
3