Home/Third Circuit/Michelle Dyer v.

Michelle Dyer v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided February 17, 2026·No. 25-3130·Unpublished

Opinion

HLD-009 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 25-3130

IN RE: MICHELLE E. DYER,

Petitioner

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 3:25-cv-14807)

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 22, 2026

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 17, 2026)

OPINION*

PER CURIAM Michelle Dyer filed an emergency motion on behalf of her husband, Aaron Dyer, a state prisoner, seeking, among other things, an order directing the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to immediately grant Aaron habeas relief. We construe her motion as a petition for a writ of mandamus and will deny it as construed.

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

On August 21, 2025, Michelle, purportedly acting as her husband’s “next friend”

and “attorney-in fact” pursuant to a power of attorney, filed in the District Court a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 seeking his immediate release from New Jersey’s South Woods State Prison, where he currently is serving a five-year sentence for sexual assault. The District Court screened the habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Michelle did not meet the requirements to act as her husband’s next friend. In dismissing the petition without prejudice, the District Court expressly invited Michelle to move to reopen the matter within 30 days if she could cure the deficiencies it had identified. Otherwise, Aaron would have to file his own petition.

Michelle timely filed a motion to reopen on October 21, 2025. She then filed the instant mandamus petition in this Court just a few days later. She has since filed motions to seal the petition and the exhibits filed with her application to proceed in forma pauperis because they contain the couple’s sensitive medical information, confidential military records, and other personal financial data and details about their minor children; a motion to excuse service of the same materials upon respondents; and motions to expedite consideration of her request for emergency relief.

To the extent that Michelle seeks relief in Aaron’s name, we cannot entertain the petition because she is not a lawyer and thus may not litigate on his behalf. See Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “normally, representative

parties such as next friends may not conduct litigation pro se”); cf. Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1966) (per curiam).

That said, we may still consider the petition, but only to the extent Michelle seeks to vindicate her own interests. Insofar as she challenges the District Court’s delay in resolving her motion to reopen, she is not entitled to the “drastic remedy” of mandamus. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). District Courts have discretion over docket management. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). While a writ of mandamus may be warranted where “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), the short period of time about which Michelle complains hardly amounts to undue delay warranting our intervention.

Furthermore, to the extent that Michelle seeks to challenge by mandamus the District Court’s refusal to grant her next-friend status, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). And, in any event, given the District Court’s expressed willingness to entertain a motion to reopen, she cannot show that she lacks other adequate means to obtain the relief she desires. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (explaining that, to obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show, inter alia, that she has no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired).

Accordingly, we will deny the petition. The related motions seeking expedited relief are denied as well.1

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

Michelle Dyer v., (3d Cir. 2026).

Michelle Dyer v. (Michelle Dyer v.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simbraw, Inc. v. United States
367 F.2d 373 (Third Circuit, 1966)
In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Boroughs, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Champion International Corporation, a New York Corporation Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, a Maine Corporation Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation International Paper Company, a New York Corporation Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation the Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of State of Alaska, in No. 81-2341. State of Colorado v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, D/B/A Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of State of Colorado, in No. 81-2342. State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities v. Boise Cascade Corp., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatch, Inc., Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Inc. A Division of Unisource Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Washington, in No. 81-2343. State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company Corporation, Butler Paper Company, Graham Paper Company, Bermingham & Prosser Company, Distribix, Inc. Paper Supply Company, and Shaughnessy-Kniep-Hawe Paper Company. Appeal of State of Missouri, in No. 81-2344. The State of Oregon, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Division of Unisource Corporation, Western Paper Company, Division of Hammermill Paper Company, and Zellerbach Paper Company, Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Oregon, in No. 81-2345. The State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions, Public Agencies and Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company, an Affiliate of Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., J. C. Paper Company, an Affiliate of Wausau Paper Mills Co., Nationwide Papers, Incorporated, a Division of Champion International Corp., Seaboard Paper Company, an Affiliate of Mead Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corp., Blake, Moffitt & Towne, a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, a Division of Unisource Corp., Ingram Paper Company and Noland Paper Company (Carpenter/offutt Paper Co.). Appeal of State of California, in No. 81-2346. Nebraska, State of v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Co., Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Kimberly Clark and Western Paper Co., a Division of Hammermill Paper Company. Appeal of State of Nebraska, in No. 81-2347. State of Iowa, by Its Attorney General, Richard C. Turner v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corporation the Mead Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation Hammermill Paper Company International Paper Company Potlatch Corporation Scott Paper Company St. Regis Paper Company Union Camp Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. And Weyerhaeuser Company. Appeal of State of Iowa, in No. 81-2348. Montana, State of v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corp. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Hammermill Paper Co. International Paper Co. Mead Corp. The Potlatch Corp. Scott Paper Co. St. Regis Paper Co. Union Camp Corp. Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. Weyerhaeuser Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. And Kimberly Clark. Appeal of State of Montana, in No. 81-2349. State of Arkansas v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Western Paper Company, Graham Paper Company. Appeal of State of Arkansas, in No. 81-2350
685 F.2d 810 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Ronald Madden v. Kevin Myers, Honorable Malcolm Muir, United States District Judge, Nominal
102 F.3d 74 (Third Circuit, 1996)
In Re: Karen A. Briscoe Alfred Lara Wanda T. Kizer Debra Alexander Rhonda Allen Mary Green Glenda D. Abbott and Leslie Bales
448 F.3d 201 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Elustra v. Mineo
595 F.3d 699 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)