Leroy Garrett v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 24-2862
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-2862 ___________

IN RE: LEROY A. GARRETT, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Civ. No. 1-17-mc-00151) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 31, 2024 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 21, 2024) __________

OPINION * __________ PER CURIAM

Leroy Garrett has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which he requests

relief related to a complex dispute, currently pending in the District Court, that stems

from a judgment that a Canadian mining company obtained against the Bolivarian

Republic of Venezuela. See generally Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela, 24 F.4th 242, 246 (3d Cir. 2022). 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. The District Court has set forth “the numerous steps in the complex process that

will culminate in the Court-ordered sale of as many shares of [Venezuelan state-owned

corporations] as is necessary to satisfy whatever amount of judgments will be involved in

the sale.” Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. MC 17-151-

LPS, 2023 WL 4826467, at *2 (D. Del. July 27, 2023). In his mandamus petition, Garrett

requests that we put those District Court proceedings “on hold . . . until such court fix or

amend a series of mistakes.” C.A. Doc. No. 1 at 1. Garrett maintains that he, and other

alleged creditors of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, have not been able to present

their claims because the District Judge and appointed Special Master have allegedly

conducted the proceedings with “unethical secrecy.” Id. at 3.

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, Garrett has not

established his entitlement to such extraordinary relief, as he failed to show how the

District Court proceedings are inadequate to address his claims. Garrett’s argument

regarding the secrecy of the proceedings is undermined by the extensive, public District

Court record. Moreover, Garrett was able to file a request for a preliminary injunction in

the District Court to halt the proceedings. The District Court recently considered and

denied that request. See D. Del. Civ. No. 1-24-cv-00380, ECF 24. This mandamus proceeding may not be used as a substitute for his appeal in that case. 1 See Madden v.

Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that “a writ of mandamus may not

issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal”); see also Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v.

Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.

1 Garret has filed an appeal, which is docketed in this Court at C.A. No. 24-2791.