Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-7-2005
In Re: Johnny Lopez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4525
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Johnny Lopez " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 145.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/145
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-2 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4525
________________
IN RE: JOHNNY LOPEZ,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 05-cv-00019)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 4, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed : December 7, 2005
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Lopez has filed a mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,
seeking to compel the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to sign all
orders it issues and to order the respondents in the underlying habeas corpus proceeding
to sign all motions and pleadings submitted to the court. We will deny the petition.
1
It appears that counsel for the habeas respondents filed a motion on April
14, 2005, seeking an extension of time in which to file an answer to Lopez’s habeas
corpus petition using CM/ECF. The CM/ECF system is a relatively new case
management system implemented in the Federal Judiciary which allows courts to accept
filings and provide access to filed documents over the Internet. As set forth in the District
Court’s Standing Order of February 8, 2005, “CM/ECF permits electronic filing, signing,
and verification of pleadings and other papers with the Clerk of Court through the Court’s
public web site ... and authorizes the Clerk of Court to serve notice of orders and
judgments electronically.” Congress recognized the validity of electronic signatures with
the passage of the Electronic Signatures Act in 2000, and electronic filing in the District
Court for the District of Delaware went into effect on March 1, 2005. The District Court
thus accepted the motion for docketing, and granted the habeas respondents’ request.
Lopez was notified of the extension by an unsigned service copy of the District Court’s
order. Claiming an entitlement to a hand-written signature on every motion submitted
and on every order issued, Lopez seeks mandamus relief from this Court.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To justify the Court’s
use of this remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right
to issuance of the writ. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976);
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). No such showing has been made in
the instant case.
2
The motion submitted by the habeas respondents contains the electronic
signature of the Deputy Attorney General who filed it and complies with the District
Court’s Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means.
As set forth in Section (H)(1) of those procedures, “[t]he user login and password
required to submit documents to CM/ECF shall serve as that user’s signature for purposes
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and for all other purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.” Counsel included a signature block, set
forth her name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, and typed her name
preceded by a “/s/.” See id. Additionally, respondents’ motion includes a certificate of
service stating that the motion has been filed electronically as required by Section (E)(3)
of the District Court’s Standing Order. As for the order issued by the District Court,
Lopez points to no legal authority requiring that a signature appear on a court-issued
order and we have found none. In accordance with Section (K)(2) of the District Court’s
Administrative Procedures, a text entry granting the motion was placed upon the docket
and Lopez was provided a copy of the order. If Lopez has any concerns as to whether the
respondents in his habeas proceeding truly filed a motion that was served upon him or
whether the court actually issued an order of which he received notice, he need merely
review the District Court docket sheet for confirmation.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus
will be denied.
3