Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-8-2008
In Re: Arthur Hairston
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3330
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Arthur Hairston " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 388.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/388
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.
Amended HLD-150 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3330
___________
IN RE: ARTHUR L. HAIRSTON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-01348)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 29, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 8, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Arthur L. Hairston, Sr. seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to grant injunctive relief in
connection with his civil rights complaint. In his complaint, Hairston challenged the
filing fee installment payment requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1915, as being unconstitutional as applied to him. He alleged that prison
officials are deducting funds from his prison account for payment of filing fees, and
because he only earns $0.11 per hour from his prison job, he needs that money to call his
loved ones. Hairston contended that his Eighth Amendment rights were being violated by
the prison account deductions given that he has no gainful employment. Hairston also
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court granted the in forma
pauperis motion but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Hairston filed a notice of appeal, which was docketed in this Court at
C.A. No. 08-2641. On August 8, 2008, Hairston’s appeal was dismissed for failure to
timely prosecute for failure to pay the requisite fee as directed.
In his mandamus petition, Hairston asks this Court to compel the District Court to
grant his motion for injunctive relief pending his appeal, which was contained within his
notice of appeal. He contends that he should not have to choose between maintaining
telephone contact with his family and pursuing civil rights suits and appeals, and that
injunctive relief to halt the continuing account deductions is necessary. Hairston has also
filed letter motions dated August 21, 2008 and August 27, 2008, again asking for the
injunctive relief to be granted.
The remedy of mandamus is appropriate to aid this Court’s jurisdiction in
extraordinary circumstances only. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d
Cir. 1998). To prevail, a petitioner must show, among other things, that there are no other
available means to obtain the relief he seeks. Id.
2
We note that Hairston’s request for injunctive relief pending appeal, as filed in
District Court, now appears to be moot because his appeal is no longer pending. Thus,
because his mandamus petition seeks an order compelling the District Court to grant an
injunction pending appeal, we will deny the mandamus petition. To the extent that
Hairston asks this Court to overturn the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint and
enjoin the deductions from his prison account, Hairston clearly had other available means
of obtaining review of the District Court’s decision other than by way of mandamus,
namely, his appeal at C.A. No. 08-2641. Mandamus is not an alternative to an appeal;
because of its drastic nature, “a writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may
be obtained through an ordinary appeal.” In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d at 223. To
the extent that Hairston’s motions seek the same relief sought in his mandamus petition,
we deny the motions on the same principles. Finally, to the extent that the motions seek
expedited consideration of his mandamus petition, we deny the motion.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and
deny the letter motion.
3