DLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1783
___________
IN RE: CAROLE ANN DIXON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 09-mj-06210)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 3, 2011
Before: BARRY, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 16, 2011 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Carole Ann Dixon has been charged with using interstate communications to
threaten employees of the Social Security Administration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875.
A Magistrate Judge declared her incompetent to stand trial and committed her to the
custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Dixon appealed pro se,
but we dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction because she was required to appeal to
the District Court in the first instance. (C.A. No. 10-4272.)
Dixon later filed the petition for a writ of mandamus and related documents at
issue here. Dixon’s filings are barely comprehensible and often illegible, and it is
difficult to discern any specific requests for relief. Her filings appear to refer to and
might be read to challenge the commitment order but, if so, they lack merit. Mandamus
is an extraordinary remedy that may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See In re
Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 398 (3d Cir. 2006). Dixon, who is represented by
counsel in her criminal proceeding, has not raised anything suggesting that her
competency hearing was irregular or any decipherable ground for requiring the drastic
remedy of mandamus in that regard, and our review of the record does not suggest any.
Nor has she raised any decipherable ground for requiring mandamus otherwise.
Dixon’s filings contain allegations concerning her familial history, the Social Security
Administration, her disagreements with physicians regarding medication, the dispositions
of various lawsuits, her civil rights, various alleged governmental conspiracies, and other
matters. Aside from a request that we order her alleged one million dollar bail returned
to her with an additional ten million dollars, however, we cannot discern any particular
request for relief from any particular party or any reason to believe that such relief might
be warranted. In that regard, our discussion of Dixon’s previous mandamus petition
applies to this one as well. See In re Dixon, 225 F. App’x 52, 53 (3d Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
2