ALD-230 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-2455
In re: NATHANIEL BROOKS, JR.,
Petitioner
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to: E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-09-cv-04712)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 24, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 7, 2010)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Nathaniel Brooks, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling the return of certain papers and other belongings. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny the petition.
Brooks filed a motion for a writ of mandamus in District Court alleging that he has
attempted to obtain from his public defender discovery materials and information about state
1
criminal charges against him. He explained that his attorney did not respond to his requests
for information and believes that his due process and equal protection rights are being
violated. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that Brooks does
not presently have a pending case in that court. Brooks then filed his motion for a writ of
mandamus in this Court, which includes similar allegations.
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), as the petitioner must
demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996). We may issue a writ of mandamus only if there is an otherwise existing basis for
subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981). In
this case, as the District Court found, there is no pending action over which a writ of
mandamus might aid our jurisdiction. See id. (explaining that, “[b]efore entertaining” a
petition for a writ of mandamus, “we must identify a jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ
might assist”). Indeed, federal courts other than the United States Supreme Court do not
exercise appellate jurisdiction over state courts. See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781-82
(3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, it does not appear that Brooks has attempted to obtain the
information he seeks through other means. Therefore, mandamus is not the appropriate
avenue for the remedy he seeks. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
2