Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-22-2005
In Re: Jackson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3046
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Jackson " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 786.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/786
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.
BPS-296 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3046
__________________________________
IN RE: GERALD O. JACKSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 03-cv-05682)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
JULY 8, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FISHER AND VANANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 22, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Gerald Jackson has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the
Unites States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule upon a supplemental
motion in which he raised a claim under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
We will deny the mandamus petition.
In 2003, Jackson filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to
vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, alleging claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Jackson twice supplemented his § 2255 motion, including his request for
permission to extend the application of Blakely. The District Court denied the § 2255
motion without expressly ruling upon the Blakely “motion.” Jackson appealed, and
recently we denied a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 04-4622.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). The main purpose is “to
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it
to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,
319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). To qualify for relief, the petitioner must have no other adequate
means to obtain the relief, and must show that the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
The District Court provided Jackson with notice pursuant to United States v.
Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), and Jackson supplemented his § 2255 motion adding
several additional claims, all of which were addressed by the District Court in its August
25, 2004 order. Although the District Court’s opinion did not specifically address
Jackson’s supplemental Blakely claim, Jackson did not re-raise this claim in his motion
for reconsideration or on appeal. Because both of these avenues were viable alternatives
for pursuing his Blakely claim, Jackson plainly had other adequate means of relief.
In conclusion, because Jackson has not shown a clear and indisputable right to the
writ, we will deny his petition.
2