*AMENDED BLD-113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4720
___________
IN RE: MATTHEW TUCKER,
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. Civ. No. 13-cv-04417)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2015
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 9, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Matthew Tucker, proceeding pro se, submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to
compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on a motion
for reconsideration he filed on April 17, 2014 (which he identifies as ECF No. 91). He
also appears to request that we direct the Clerk of the District Court, William T. Walsh,
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
to amend some of the docket entries in his District Court case, so that their language
exactly mirrors the language he uses on his filings. For the reasons that follow, we will
deny the petition.
On December 23, 2014, while Tucker’s mandamus petition was pending, the
District Court denied the motion for reconsideration (citing ECF No. 91 in ECF No. 175).
Accordingly, we will deny as moot Tucker’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the
District Court to rule on it. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-
99 (3d Cir. 1996).1
To the extent Tucker seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Clerk of the District
Court to amend information in the District Court docket entries, the request is denied.
Mandamus is a remedy appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Tucker, whose filings are exceedingly difficult to
read, and who does not show that he has tried to resolve his complaint with the District
Court Clerk’s Office or through the District Court, has not established that he has a “clear
and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other adequate
means to obtain the desired relief.” Id. Given the difficulty the Clerk must encounter in
deciphering the exact title of Tucker’s numerous filings, even if Tucker met the standard
for mandamus relief, we would decline to exercise our discretion to grant it on his claim.
1
We observe that Tucker has already filed an appeal (in connection with D.N.J. Civ. No.
13-cv-04417) of the District Court’s December 23, 2014 order denying reconsideration.
That appeal remains pending at C.A. No. 15-1166 and has been listed by the Clerk for
dismissal due to a possible jurisdictional defect.
2
For these reasons, we deny Tucker’s mandamus petition. We also deny Tucker’s
remaining pending motions, including his motion for compensatory and punitive
damages, his motion to compel, his motion requesting the imposition of liens, his motion
for this Court to accept evidence, and his motion for an extension of time to pay the fees
for this action. Regarding his motion for an extension of time, we note that it is
unnecessary because we granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis by order
entered January 9, 2015.
3