CLD-016 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1618
___________
IN RE: DANTE AMOR MORRIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Criminal Action No. 99-cr-00601)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 21, 2010
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 12, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Dante Morris seeks a writ of a mandamus directing the District Court to
grant his release from prison. We will deny the petition.
In March 2004, Morris pled guilty to thirty-six counts of possessing and uttering
counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). The District Court sentenced
Morris to eight months of imprisonment, a three year term of supervised release, a special
assessment of $3,600, and restitution in the amount of $29,135.17. After his release from
prison, Morris failed to report to the U.S. Probation Office and, in August 2004, the
District Court issued a warrant for his arrest. Morris remained a fugitive until he was
arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service in January 2010. At a hearing that same month, the
District Court revoked Morris’ supervised release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four
months of imprisonment. Morris subsequently filed a notice of appeal in this Court
arguing, inter alia, that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over his case. See United
States v. Dante Morris, C.A. No. 10-2507. While that appeal was pending, he filed the
instant mandamus petition.
Although the relief Morris seeks in his petition is not entirely clear, he appears to
request a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to grant his release because it
lacks jurisdiction over his case. Specifically, he argues that because he is a member of
the “Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah,” the District Court does not have jurisdiction over
him and his continued imprisonment violates, inter alia, his international human rights.
Morris raised this precise claim on direct appeal.
A writ of 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). A petitioner
seeking mandamus must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the
relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and
(3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S.Ct.
705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus
cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir.
1996).
Because Morris filed his mandamus petition while his direct appeal was still
pending in this Court and mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, we will deny the
petition. Morris’ “motion to reopen appeal and to proceed in forma pauperis” is granted.