Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-27-2008
In Re: Mindy Zied-Campbell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2613
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Mindy Zied-Campbell " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 961.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/961
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.
ALD-228 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2613
___________
IN RE: MINDY JAYE ZIED-CAMPBELL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 04-cv-00026)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 12, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 27, 2008 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell presents a mandamus petition through which she
challenges some of the District Court’s decisions in her civil rights suit. Specifically, she
argues that the District Court violated a clear duty on April 23, 2008, when it denied her
request to waive PACER 1 fees. She also contends that the District Court should have
granted her motion for reconsideration and vacated its March 30, 2007 order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. She asks
that we issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court to vacate its orders of
March 30, 2007, and April 23, 2008.
We will deny Zied-Campbell’s mandamus petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist.Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Within the discretion of
the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “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.’” Id. (citations omitted). To win mandamus relief
for a “judicial usurpation of power” or a “clear abuse of discretion,” a petitioner must
show that she has “no other adequate means to attain the desired relief,” (so as to prevent
the writ from being used a substitute for appeal) and “a right to the writ [that] is clear and
indisputable.’” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (citations
omitted); see also In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2000).
Zied-Campbell, who asks us to direct the District Court to vacate its orders,
attempts to shoe-horn an appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus. However,
mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380; Madden v. Myers,
1
PACER, an acronym for Public Access to Electronic Records, is a service that
provides electronic access via the Internet to case and docket information from the federal
courts.
2
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Zied-Campbell cannot show that she is without an
adequate means for relief. At some time, she may renew her arguments that she showed
cause for a waiver of the PACER fees and that the District Court abused its discretion in
denying her motion for reconsideration in an appeal from the District Court’s decisions.
Accordingly, mandamus relief is not appropriate here.
3