ALD-064 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3002
___________
IN RE: MICHAEL WEST,
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. No. 1-16-cv-08701)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 30, 2017
Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 2, 2018)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Michael West is currently serving a sentence for distribution and
possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and
(a)(5)(B). In November 2016, West filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the Bureau of
Prison’s calculation of his sentence. West later moved to amend his petition to add a
claim that his convictions should be vacated because the district court that presided over
the criminal matter lacked jurisdiction to convict him. While his motion to amend was
pending, the Government submitted an answer to West’s § 2241 petition.
West then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Government
had failed to address his contention that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to convict
him. Shortly thereafter, the District Court denied West’s motion to amend his petition to
include this claim, explaining that he may not challenge his conviction and sentence via
§ 2241. West’s habeas petition remains pending in the District Court.
We will deny the petition.1 Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we grant
only when the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and “no other
adequate means” to obtain it. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006); see also In
re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). West has not demonstrated
that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the requested relief, as he may object to
any errors in his case on appeal from a final judgment.2
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus will be denied.
1
We have jurisdiction over this mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
2
We express no opinion on the merit of any claims raised in such appeal.
2