CLD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1508
___________
IN RE: JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. Action No. 18-cv-00164)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 19, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 13, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
James Arthur Biggins, a Delaware state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus challenging a policy requiring the electronic filing of court documents. 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.
Biggins states that a pilot program was implemented pursuant to an agreement
between the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections that requires Delaware state prisoners to
electronically file documents in District Court. Biggins contends that the program is
discriminatory, restricts what prisoners can file, and violates his right of access to the
courts. He asserts that the District Court and the Commissioner lacked authority to
implement the policy without Congress’ approval.
“Traditionally, the writ of mandamus 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 Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and its use
is discouraged.’” Id. 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.
To the extent Biggins contends that the District Court exceeded its authority, he
filed a civil action in District Court challenging the electronic filing policy. He also
raised in that action his claim of a violation of his right of access to the courts. Biggins
has not shown that he has no other adequate means to attain relief.1
1
Biggins was denied in forma pauperis status in that action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and an appeal is pending, but even if the appeal is unsuccessful, he may pursue
his claims by paying the filing fee.
2
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3