Kaeun Kim v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: October 15, 2024
• Docket: 24-2601
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-193 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-2601 ___________

IN RE: KAEUN KIM, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 2-23-cv-04059) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 26, 2024

Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 15, 2024) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Kaeun Kim, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey to compel the disclosure of a

“surveillance video,” to impose sanctions against Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential),

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. and to stay criminal proceedings against him in the Superior Court of New Jersey. For

the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.

Kim filed a civil rights action in the District Court, raising claims related to his

arrest in New Jersey on charges stemming from his attempt to meet with an employee of

Prudential the day after he was fired from his position with the company. (ECF 1.) He

named as defendants Prudential and one of its employees, a prosecutor, and the Superior

Court judge presiding over his criminal proceedings. The defendants filed motions to

dismiss. (ECF 14; 17; 31.) Meanwhile, Kim repeatedly sought to obtain from Prudential

surveillance video capturing his actions at the company’s headquarters on the day of his

arrest. (ECF 20; 21; 32; 54.) He also filed motions for sanctions against the defendants

for alleged discovery violations. (ECF 43; 44.) A Magistrate Judge rejected those efforts

as premature because it had not ruled on the motions to dismiss or commenced discovery.

(ECF 25; 46; 55.) The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in

February 2024. (ECF 60 & 61.) Kim appealed. (ECF 62.) That appeal, which was

docketed here at C.A. No. 24-1448, remains pending. In August 2024, Kim filed the

mandamus petition that is before us now.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only extraordinary

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

Mandamus is a means “to confine an inferior 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.” Id.

(quoting In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000)). To demonstrate that

mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he has a “clear and

2 indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other adequate means”

to obtain the relief desired. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

Kim has not made that showing. In his pending appeal of the order granting the

defendants’ motions to dismiss, Kim can, and in fact has, challenged the rejection of his

requests for sanctions and for the surveillance video. See Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v.

Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating that “[d]iscovery orders … ordinarily are

not appealable until after there is a final judgment.”); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500,

506 (1979) (explaining that a court will not issue a writ of mandamus where the

petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling complained of and all

objectives now sought, by direct appeal”). Because that appeal provides Kim with an

opportunity to obtain the desired relief, mandamus relief is not warranted. In addition,

we lack authority to stay Kim’s state court criminal proceedings because, absent

circumstances not present here, a federal court may not issue a writ of mandamus to

compel action by a state court or state official. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654

F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981); In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per

curiam).

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1

1 Kim’s “Emergency Motion [for] Injunctive Relief” is denied. 3