Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-22-2008
Earl Pondexter v. The Dept. of Housing
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3486
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Earl Pondexter v. The Dept. of Housing" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 335.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/335
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-164 (September 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3486
___________
IN RE: EARL A. PONDEXTER,
Petitioner
___________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 01-cv-2161)
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 30, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 22, 2008)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM.
Earl Pondexter filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1651, seeking an order reversing the District Court’s order of dismissal and remanding
the case for trial. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition.
On November 15, 2001, Pondexter filed a lawsuit against the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Allegheny County Housing Authority
1
(“ACHA”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On June 6, 2002, the District Court granted HUD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered
ACHA to answer. On September 13, 2006, the District Court granted ACHA leave to file
a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted on September 4, 2007.
Pondexter unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of that order and then appealed. His
appeal is currently pending before this Court at C.A. No. 07-4431.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
It is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir.
1998) (“[M]andamus is not a substitute for appeal and a writ of mandamus will not be
granted if relief can be obtained by way of our appellate jurisdiction.”). As Pondexter’s
appeal of the District Court’s orders is currently pending before this Court, he has not
demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. According, we will deny his
mandamus petition.
2