In re Mitchell

340 F. App'x 787
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedAugust 13, 2009
DocketNo. 09-2905
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 F. App'x 787 (In re Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Mitchell, 340 F. App'x 787 (3d Cir. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Mitchell is a Pennsylvania inmate who has filed three separate suits in federal district court alleging violations of his civil rights related to various prison practices and occurrences in the course of his incarceration. All three suits are still pending. Mitchell has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, apparently seeking to obtain faster adjudication of his suits by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” which is generally used only to “confine an inferi- or court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) (citations omitted). Only “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ ” warrant the use of this extraordinary remedy. Id. (citation omitted). Relief is not warranted here.

Mitchell’s three actions were filed in April 2008, August 2008, and April 2009, respectively. Review of the District Court’s docket for each case reveals no delay that would constitute an exceptional circumstance. Accordingly, we will deny the petition. We also deny Mitchell’s motion for appointment of counsel and his “Motion for Order of Protection.”

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
340 F. App'x 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-ca3-2009.