Rodney Wells v.

Third Circuit

Rodney Wells v.

623 F. App'x 50

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 25, 2015

Docket15-3461

StatusUnpublished

This text of 623 F. App'x 50 (Rodney Wells v.) 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

Rodney Wells v., 623 F. App'x 50 (3d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION *

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Wells, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to adjudicate his petition for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.

In 1986, Wells was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of third-degree murder and other offenses. He is serving a life sentence for the murder conviction. On January 28, 2015, Wells filed a petition for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in District Court. Wells seeks to obtain documents related to his grand jury proceedings. The District Court has yet to rule on Wells’ petition. On October 15, 2015, Wells filed mandamus petition in this Court asking us to the direct the District Court to adjudicate the petition.

The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that traditionally has been used “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.” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135,140 (3d Cir.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and that his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141. A writ of mandamus may 'be appropriate when a *51 district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). However, mandamus relief will ordinarily be denied “where there are practical avenues' for seeking relief that are untried.” Pate-naude, 210 F.3d at 141.

Wells has not shown that he has no other adequate means to attain his desired relief. He has not filed a motion in District Court asking for a ruling on his petition. Because Wells has yet to try an avenue for seeking relief, issuance of a writ is not warranted.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to Wells filing a new mandamus petition if necessary.

*

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

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

OPINION *

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Wells, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to adjudicate his petition for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.

In 1986, Wells was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of third-degree murder and other offenses. He is serving a life sentence for the murder conviction. On January 28, 2015, Wells filed a petition for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in District Court. Wells seeks to obtain documents related to his grand jury proceedings. The District Court has yet to rule on Wells’ petition. On October 15, 2015, Wells filed mandamus petition in this Court asking us to the direct the District Court to adjudicate the petition.

The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that traditionally has been used “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.” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135,140 (3d Cir.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and that his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141. A writ of mandamus may 'be appropriate when a *51 district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). However, mandamus relief will ordinarily be denied “where there are practical avenues' for seeking relief that are untried.” Pate-naude, 210 F.3d at 141.

Wells has not shown that he has no other adequate means to attain his desired relief. He has not filed a motion in District Court asking for a ruling on his petition. Because Wells has yet to try an avenue for seeking relief, issuance of a writ is not warranted.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to Wells filing a new mandamus petition if necessary.

*

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 F. App'x 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-wells-v-ca3-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack