Dontaie Anderson v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: November 23, 2021
• Docket: 21-2507
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-019 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 21-2507 ___________

IN RE: DONTAIE ANDERSON, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 28, 2021

Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 23, 2021) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Dontaie Anderson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we

direct the recusal of the judge overseeing his state criminal proceedings, vacate his

convictions, appoint a new criminal defense attorney, and order a new trial.

Our mandamus jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the

power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy

that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Traditionally, it may be used “only ‘to confine an inferior

court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction,’” id. (quoting Will v. United

States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967)), and our “jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus under

28 U.S.C. § 1651 lies in cases in which potential appellate jurisdiction exists,” In re

Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 779 (3d Cir. 2000).

Thus, we generally lack jurisdiction to compel action by a state court in the

manner Anderson requests. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir.

1981) (federal court “ordinarily may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court

to exercise jurisdiction entrusted to it”); In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963)

(per curiam) (holding district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus

compelling action by a state court); cf. Malhan v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of State, 938 F.3d

453, 462 (3d Cir. 2019) (emphasizing that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37 (1971), aims to avoid federal-court interference in ongoing criminal proceedings).

Accordingly, we will deny Anderson’s petition for writ of mandamus.1

1 Anderson’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 2