HLD-128 (May 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1674
___________
REVEREND WESLEY CARROLL AND FAMILY,
Appellant
v.
ROBERT V. BARTH, JR., Clerk of Courts, Western District of Pennsylvania; THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil No. 09-cv-01465)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 28, 2010
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: June 8, 2010
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Reverend Wesley Carroll, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and an order denying his
motion for reconsideration. We will affirm.
Carroll is a frequent filer of pro se actions in District Court, and appeals in
this Court. The present appeal concerns a mandamus petition filed in District Court
against the District Court Clerk and Office of the Clerk. Carroll alleged that the Clerk’s
Office is not filing and docketing his submissions.
A Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed because it
was repetitious of an earlier mandamus petition that the District Court had transferred to
this Court and we denied. See In re Carroll, 272 Fed. Appx. 148 (3d Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (unpublished decision). Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge stated that the
current mandamus petition should be dismissed for the reasons stated in our decision. We
explained that Carroll’s assertions were unsupported and noted that the court docket
reflected a steady stream of submissions by Carroll. The Magistrate Judge further
recommended the dismissal of the mandamus petition as to Carroll’s family, who were
named as petitioners but had not signed the petition. The District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the mandamus petition and
denied Carroll’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring that a petitioner has
no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and that he show a clear and
indisputable right to the relief sought. DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir.
1982). No such showing was made here.
2
As in his earlier mandamus action, Carroll’s claim that the District Court is
not filing and docketing his submissions is unsupported. We also explained in that action
that, to the extent Carroll is dissatisfied with how the District Court treats his
submissions, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its
discretion and Carroll is free to challenge on appeal the effect of the District Court’s
handling of a particular submission on a cause of action. See In re Carroll, 272 Fed.
Appx. at 149 (citing In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982)).
Thus, the District Court properly dismissed the mandamus petition and did not abuse its
discretion in denying Carroll’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s orders.
3