Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-1-2006
In Re: Martinez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4682
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Martinez " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1649.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1649
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-4 (November 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-4682
IN RE: ABRAHAM J. MARTINEZ,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 04-cv-104)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 4, 2005
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 1, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Abraham Martinez seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States District Court for District of Delaware to effect service of process in his
civil rights suit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and to rule on his motion for the
appointment of counsel.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is justified only in the
presence of exceptional circumstances. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). In order to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances, a
petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means of obtaining relief and that he
has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Id. at 403.
In an order entered December 6, 2005, the District Court – acting pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A – dismissed as frivolous all except the Fourth Amendment claims in
Martinez’s complaint. Also on that date, the District Court entered an order denying
without prejudice Martinez’s motion for the appointment of counsel and an order
requiring Martinez either to pay the remaining amount of the filing fee or to submit a new
application to proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days, or his case would be dismissed
without prejudice. On January 4, 2006, the District Court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice, because Martinez had failed to either pay the remaining filing fee or
return the required in forma pauperis forms within the deadline. In light of the District
Court’s orders, Martinez’s petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied as moot.
2