ALD-166 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1547
___________
IN RE: LEON GREEN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Cr. No. 1-13-cr-00210-006)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 16, 2015
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 5, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Leon Green, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on March 9, 2015,
asking us to order the District Court to remove his counsel of record and to dismiss the
criminal charges against him. Green contends that the District Court lacks jurisdiction
over him because he is a free Moorish American national and a member of the free
Moorish American Nation.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
“Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in
extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of
power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)(quotation
omitted). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish 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.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996)(superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c)).
Green has not provided competent authority supporting his arguments. In
addition, Green cannot show that he has no adequate means to obtain the desired relief.
Green brought a motion to dismiss in the District Court based on the same arguments
raised in his petition for a writ of mandamus. The District Court considered his
arguments and denied that motion. Green also filed a pro se motion to have his counsel
removed, which was denied. All of these issues are being addressed in the District Court
and may be raised on appeal. Green may not use a mandamus petition as a substitute for
the appeals process. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).
2