DLD-019 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2507
___________
IN RE: DONTAIE ANDERSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 28, 2021
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 23, 2021)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Dontaie Anderson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we
direct the recusal of the judge overseeing his state criminal proceedings, vacate his
convictions, appoint a new criminal defense attorney, and order a new trial.
Our mandamus jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the
power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy
that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Traditionally, it may be used “only ‘to confine an inferior
court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction,’” id. (quoting Will v. United
States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967)), and our “jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus under
28 U.S.C. § 1651 lies in cases in which potential appellate jurisdiction exists,” In re
Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 779 (3d Cir. 2000).
Thus, we generally lack jurisdiction to compel action by a state court in the
manner Anderson requests. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir.
1981) (federal court “ordinarily may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court
to exercise jurisdiction entrusted to it”); In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963)
(per curiam) (holding district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
compelling action by a state court); cf. Malhan v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of State, 938 F.3d
453, 462 (3d Cir. 2019) (emphasizing that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971), aims to avoid federal-court interference in ongoing criminal proceedings).
Accordingly, we will deny Anderson’s petition for writ of mandamus.1
1
Anderson’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
2