NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1663
_____________
JAMES RICHARDSON,
Appellant
v.
DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-CV-04939)
District Judge: Honorable Renée Marie Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 22, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 29, 2011)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
James Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals from an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey that denied his petition for a writ of
mandamus.
In his petition, Richardson, citing 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G), noted that the
Bureau of Prisons is statutorily required to provide incentives for prisoner participation in
skills development programs. Richardson attached exhibits to the petition, showing that
he has completed a number of skills development programs. He also attached
documentation of his unsuccessful attempts through administrative remedies to determine
what incentives he would be granted for having completed these programs. His
mandamus petition alleged that he has a clear right to incentives, that he has no other
adequate remedy available to him, and that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
is acting contrary to law by not providing incentives.
The District Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court stated that the
statute in question “does not mandate specific incentives, nor does it require a formal
list.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 4. The Court determined that because 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(2)(B)
“expressly provides that incentives include those that the Director . . . considers
‘appropriate’ . . . the relief Richardson actually seeks requires a discretionary
determination and is not a clear cut ministerial function of the BOP.” Id. at 5. The Court
also stated that Richardson had “not demonstrated that he has no other remedy.” Id.
Richardson timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise
plenary review over the District Court's dismissal. See Stehney v. Perry, 101 F.3d 925,
929 (3d Cir. 1996). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a district court has jurisdiction over
mandamus actions “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency
2
thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is
to be issued only in extraordinary circumstances, where the petitioner demonstrates that
he has no alternative means to achieve the relief sought, and that he has a clear and
indisputable right to the writ. Stehney, 101 F.3d at 934 & n.6.
Although the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657
(2008), requires the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
establish incentives for prisoner participation in skills development programs, the statute
does not require that any particular incentives be given. We agree with the District Court
that because the statute grants the Bureau of Prisons wide discretion in developing
incentives, mandamus relief is not available. We will therefore affirm the District Court
decision.
3