Caleb McGillvary v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 12, 2025·No. 25-1753·Unpublished

Opinion

ALD-140 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1753 ___________

IN RE: CALEB McGILLVARY, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-01497) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 1, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 12, 2025) _________ _________

OPINION* _________

In February 2025, Petitioner Caleb McGillvary filed a complaint in the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He sought a declaratory judgment

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that he qualifies for protection from removal under 8

U.S.C. § 1359 and an injunction preventing the defendants from removing him from the

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. United States. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction.

McGillvary then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. He explains

that the District Court Clerk erroneously characterized his complaint as a habeas petition

and asks us to compel the District Court to correct the docket entry to reflect the true

nature of the cause of action.

We will deny the petition. Although McGillvary is correct that the Clerk

mistakenly described an exhibit to his complaint as an exhibit to his habeas petition, see

ECF No. 2, this was merely a clerical error; the error does not affect the nature of the

filing. Indeed, the District Court specifically recognized that McGillvary’s filing was not

a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, this case does not present the type

of “extraordinary circumstances” in which the drastic remedy of mandamus is warranted.

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caleb McGillvary v., (3d Cir. 2025).

Caleb McGillvary v. (Caleb McGillvary v.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201
Power to grant writ
28 U.S.C. § 2241
§ 2202
28 U.S.C. § 2202