BLD-165 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1667
___________
IN RE: ARTHUR MORRISON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civil No. 08-cv-05408)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 8, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 7, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Arthur Morrison, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on two of his motions. For the reasons
that follow, we will deny the petition.
Morrison was convicted of various crimes in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. He was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment and
is currently incarcerated at FCI-Terminal Island in California.
In November 2008, Morrison filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He
also filed a motion seeking release on bail pending resolution of the petition. The District
Court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2009, the District Court
reopened Morrison’s case to address the numerous motions he filed after his petition was
dismissed. The District Court then denied Morrison’s pending “motion to correct or
modify the record.” In November 2009, Morrison filed a motion to reconsider, which the
District Court denied in March 2010. Morrison recently appealed that decision. See
Morrison v. United States, C.A. No. 10-1891.
On the same day that the District Court denied his motion for reconsideration,
Morrison filed the instant mandamus petition. Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy”
that we have discretion to award only when a petitioner demonstrates, among other
things, a “clear and indisputable” right to relief. In re: Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d
383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006). Moreover, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2005). Morrison requests that
this Court compel the District Court to: (1) dispose of his November 2009 motion to
reconsider, and (2) exercise jurisdiction over his application for release on bail.
As to both requests, Morrison’s petition is moot. It appears that the District Court
order denying Morrison’s motion to reconsider crossed in the mail with the mandamus
petition, as they were both filed on the same day. As to Morrison’s request for release on
2
bail, we understand that motion to have been disposed of when the District Court
dismissed the habeas petition in 2008. To the extent that he seeks bail pending his appeal
at C.A. No. 10-1891, he should file an appropriate motion in that case. As such, Morrison
has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief, so we will deny the petition
for mandamus. See In re: Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d at 398-99.
3