Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-5-2007
In Re: Carroway
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5129
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Carroway " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1676.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1676
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-101
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-5129
_____________
IN RE: DAVID O. CARROWAY,
Petitioner
________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civil No. 06-cv-00614)
_________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 19, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 5, 2007)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
For a second time, David Carroway petitions this court to issue a writ of
mandamus that would intervene in the process of criminal proceedings in the New Jersey
state courts. We once again deny his petition.
Carroway filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil
rights in connection with the open-court publicizing of his status as an informant on two
separate occasions in the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the time of the incidents,
Carroway appeared before the Superior Court in criminal proceedings against him. The
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Carroway’s
complaint, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim.1 Carroway
appealed the district court’s decision. This court later dismissed Carroway’s appeal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). See Carroway v. State, No. 06-3087, slip op. (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2006).
During the pendency of his appeal, Carroway also submitted his first mandamus petition.
We denied that petition, noting that the relief Carroway sought was well beyond the scope
of mandamus relief. See In re: David Carroway, 188 Fed. Appx. 69, 70 (3d Cir. 2006).
We further noted that, regardless of the relief sought, Carroway’s appeal of the district
court’s decision was still pending, permitting him adequate means to seek the relief he
desired. See id.
Carroway has filed his current petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), asking this court to:
• Direct the United States and New Jersey Attorneys General to conduct
investigations of various due process violations in his case and implement
all legal remedies required including a dismissal of criminal charges. (Pet.
at 2, 19.)
• Reverse the district court’s decision to dismiss his previous § 1983 claims
and this court’s holding affirming that decision. (Pet. at 6.)
• Reduce the amount of bail that has been set by the state courts. (Pet. at 16.)
1
The district court found that all named defendants were immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment or judicial or prosecutorial immunity.
2
• Order the Disciplinary Committee of the New Jersey Superior Court and the
New Jersey Bar Association to disbar various attorneys and state and
federal judges that have been involved with his proceedings. (Pet. at 17,
19.)
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy in only the most extraordinary of situations
and is traditionally used only 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.’” Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (citations omitted); see
also Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). To justify use of such a remedy, a
petitioner must show that he has (1) “no other adequate means of obtaining the desired
relief,” and (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Haines v. Liggett
Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403). “Once these
two prerequisites are met, the court’s decision whether to issue the writ is largely one of
discretion.” Id. (citing Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403). “Further, because ‘[w]here a matter is
committed to discretion, it cannot be said that a litigant's right to a particular result is
“clear and indisputable,”’ a writ of mandamus will only be granted for clear error of
law.” Sporck, 759 F.2d at 314. Carroway has failed to make any of the prerequisite
showings required to confer a writ of mandamus. The relief sought by Carroway is also
well outside the scope of the writ.
Accordingly, we will deny Carroway’s mandamus petition.
3