Derrick Martin King v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2025
• Docket: 25-1216
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ALD-086 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1216 ___________

IN RE: DERRICK MARTIN KING, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Related to Nos. 2:21-mc-01230, 2:24-cv-01693) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 20, 2025 Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed March 3, 2025) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Derrick Martin King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which he

requests relief related to multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the District Court. See

generally In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, & Mech. Ventilator Prods., No.

MC 21-1230, 2024 WL 869109, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 2024). We will deny the

petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. King has alleged that he suffered injuries from the use of a medical device that has

been recalled. King’s lawsuits based on those alleged injuries have been transferred to

the District Court as part of the MDL. In the MDL proceedings, the District Court

entered pre-trial orders providing that “only the PLC [Plaintiff’s co-lead counsel] and

Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC)—not any individual Plaintiff or their counsel—may

conduct general discovery in this MDL, and that discovery in individual matters is not

permitted at this juncture.” In re Philips Recalled CPAP, 2024 WL 869109, at *1. On

February 29, 2024, the District Court denied King’s motion challenging these orders. See

id. at *3. In his mandamus petition, King requests that we direct the District Court to

provide him with discovery materials that have been provided to the PLC and PSC.1

Additionally, on May 9, 2024, a proposed master settlement agreement (“MSA”)

was filed in the District Court. See In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, & Mech.

Ventilator Prods. Liab. Litig., W.D. Pa. No. 2:21-mc-01230, MDL No. 3014, ECF No.

2768. Several plaintiffs, including King, objected to the MSA on various grounds,

including that the settlement excluded plaintiffs with certain injuries. See id., ECF Nos.

2780, 2796, 2804. The District Court overruled those objections, explaining, in part, that

individuals with nonqualifying injuries are nonsettling parties that lack standing to

challenge the MSA. See id., ECF No. 2880.2 In his mandamus petition, King also

requests that we enjoin the District Court from entering the MSA.

1 After he filed his mandamus petition, King filed a brief indicating that he has been provided with at least some, and possibly all, of the discovery that he sought. 2 Moreover, at the time of this ruling, King had voluntarily dismissed his pending lawsuit in the MDL, see ECF No. 2840, though he has since filed another lawsuit that was 2 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See

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

mandamus relief, a petitioner “must establish 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, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

Here, King has not shown a clear and indisputable right to the relief that he seeks.3

See generally In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 247 (3d Cir.

2013) (explaining that “the district judge must be given wide latitude with regard to case

management in order to effectively achieve the goals set forth by the legislation that

created the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation”); In re Fine Paper Litig. State of

Wash., 632 F.2d 1081, 1087 (3d Cir. 1980) (discussing “the general rule that a

nonsettling party may not object to the terms of a settlement which do not affect its own

rights”). Nor has King shown that the ongoing District Court MDL proceedings will be

inadequate for him to pursue the relief that he seeks in his lawsuits. See In re Philips

Recalled CPAP, W.D. Pa. No. 2:21-mc-01230, MDL No. 3014, ECF No. 3066

(discussing the status of King’s pending case in the MDL). And to the extent that King

seeks to challenge the District Court’s rulings on his motions objecting to the pre-trial

transferred to the MDL, see ECF No. 3066. 3 To the extent that King has been provided with the discovery that he seeks, the portion of his mandamus petition requesting such relief is moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). 3 discovery orders and the MSA, this mandamus proceeding may not be used as a

substitute for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A] writ

of mandamus may not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.”).

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.