CLD-293 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1860
___________
IN RE: JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.,
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. Nos. 1:15-cv-07887 & 1:16-cv-00251)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 16, 2016
Before: FISHER, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 29, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
James L. Roudabush, Jr., sought to file two lawsuits in forma pauperis in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court denied
him leave to do so on the grounds that he has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
and did not show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Roudabush
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
has appealed from the orders. He also submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to
challenge the District Court’s orders in those cases.
We must deny his petition because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the
desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In
re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). Roudabush cannot claim
that he has no other means to get relief where his appeals provide an adequate alternative
to mandamus. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212-13 (3d Cir. 2006).
2