DLD-055 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3518
___________
IN RE: STEPHEN P. WALLACE,
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. 19-cv-14189)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 26, 2019
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 16, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Stephen P. Wallace has filed a document entitled “Extraordinary writs of
mand[a]mus/prohibition for en banc panel to assume original jurisdiction, to ‘reverse &
render’ that case be relocated to Eastern District of Pennsylvania for investigation by [ED
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PA] US Attorney, William L. McSwain & [IRS-CID], for good cause shown.” He has
also filed a “Second Emergency Motion.” We will deny both.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). A writ should not issue unless the petitioner has “no other adequate means to
attain the relief” sought and he has shown that his right to the writ is “clear and
indisputable.” Id. at 378-79 (quoting Cheney v. United States, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81
(2004)). Further, a mandamus action is not a substitute for an appeal. Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996).
While the aim of Wallace’s petition is not entirely clear, he does not have a “clear
and indisputable right” to have us assume jurisdiction and reassign his case to another
federal district court for some type of investigation. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d
533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012) (explaining that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction).
If he is unhappy with any of the District Court’s rulings, he can take an appeal at the
appropriate time. To the extent he is claiming that the District Court has unduly delayed
in ruling on his motions for a stay, we decline to grant relief. While mandamus may be
warranted when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, the motions that Wallace has appended to his
mandamus petition have only been pending for a short time.
2
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus and second
emergency motion are denied.1
1
To the extent Wallace’s response to the Clerk’s noncompliance order, dated November
7, seeks summary judgment or other relief, the motion is denied.
3