BLD-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3803
___________
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. 2-16-cv-04022)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 20, 2016
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 16, 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.
Bush filed a complaint against Mercy Hospital and CTT Community Treatment
Team claiming negligence in connection with medical care provided to his relative. On
August 1, 2016, the District Court granted Bush’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The District Court
explained that Bush had filed an earlier complaint raising the same claims against the
same defendants and that the complaint had been dismissed. Bush filed an appeal, which
is pending in this Court. See C.A. No. 16-3348.
In his mandamus petition, Bush presents issues related to the dismissal of his
complaint. Bush raises whether the District Judge had a constitutional duty to determine
if Mercy Hospital and CTT Community Treatment Team were negligent, and whether the
District Judge monitored the defendants’ compliance with the disclosure requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
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 seeks review of the
dismissal of his complaint against Mercy Hospital and CTT Community Treatment
2
Team. Because Bush can raise the issues presented 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