Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-25-2009
In Re: I Re: Kevin Woodruff
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 09-1064
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"In Re: I Re: Kevin Woodruff " (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1691.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1691
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-39 (January 30, 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1064
___________
IN RE: KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 3:06-cv-02310)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 30, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 25, 2009)
______________
OPINION
______________
PER CURIAM.
In December 2006, Petitioner Kevin Woodruff, a federal prisoner who, at
the time, was incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg in Pennsylvania,1 petitioned the District
Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In January 2009,
1
Woodruff has since been relocated on multiple occasions, and currently is
incarcerated at USP-Big Sandy in Kentucky.
1
Woodruff petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order compelling
either the Respondent to answer Woodruff’s June 2008 motion to supplement his habeas
petition or the District Court to act upon his habeas petition.2 On March 12, 2009, the
District Court denied Woodruff’s habeas petition. Given that Woodruff has now received
one of the alternative forms of relief he seeks in his mandamus petition – a ruling on his
habeas petition – we will deny his mandamus petition as moot.
2
Woodruff’s petition also seeks either a declaratory judgment or
preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 4081, which he claims
was enacted by less than a quorum of Congress and is therefore unconstitutional.
Woodruff has not established that this claim warrants mandamus relief. See Hahnemann
Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996) (“The writ of mandamus is a
drastic remedy that a court should grant only in extraordinary circumstances in response
to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
2