GLD-033 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3353
___________
IN RE: GERALD BUSH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. Action No. 11-cv-02612)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 22, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, GREEENAWAY, JR., and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 2, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Gerald Bush, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking review of an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In 2011, Bush filed a civil rights action on behalf of himself, his minor daughter,
and his granddaughter, against the Department of Human Services, the City of
Philadelphia, and other defendants. Bush claimed, among other things, a due process
violation based on a delay in receiving a post-deprivation hearing after his daughter and
granddaughter were removed from his home. The District Court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice, noting that Bush could not represent his daughter and granddaughter.
Bush filed an amended complaint, which the District Court dismissed as untimely.
On appeal, we affirmed certain rulings but concluded that the District Court had erred in
dismissing the complaint. We remanded the case for further proceedings. Bush v. Dep’t
of Human Servs., et al., 485 F. App’x 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (non-
precedential). On remand, Bush attempted to amend his complaint. Ultimately, his
fourth amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. We affirmed on appeal. Bush v. Dep’t of Human Servs., et al., 614 F.
App’x 616, 621 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (non-precedential).
Bush then filed a motion in District Court seeking to re-file his complaint. The
District Court denied the motion and Bush’s subsequent motions for reconsideration. We
affirmed the denial of relief, noting that Bush had not shown any extraordinary
circumstances that warranted reopening the judgment. Bush v. Dep’t of Human Servs., et
al., 642 F. App’x 84, 85 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (non-precedential).
While his appeal was pending, Bush filed a “Complaint and Law,” which the
District Court construed as a motion for sanctions. The District Court stated that Bush
2
claimed “non-discloser” under “28 U.S.C.A. 16” and “28 U.S.C.A. 26” and appeared to
assert that the defendants had violated the rules of discovery in his prior proceedings.
The District Court denied the motion. Bush filed an appeal, which is pending in this
Court. See C.A. No. 16-2110.
In his present mandamus petition, Bush asks us to address the disclosure
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. He appears to assert in his petition
and supplement thereto that the District Court erred in failing to distinguish between
disclosure and discovery in denying his motion for sanctions.
The writ of mandamus traditionally has been used “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.” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate
means to attain the desired relief and that his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable. Id. at 141.
Bush does not satisfy this standard. His mandamus petition attempts to raise a
legal question related to the District Court’s denial of his motion for sanctions. Because
Bush may raise this question in his appeal of the District Court’s order, he has other
adequate means to attain the desired relief.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3