*AMENDED CLD-283 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3232
___________
IN RE: SCOTT JOHN TRAVALINE,
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. No. 10-cv-01653)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 8, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 29, 2011 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Scott John Travaline seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to
commence a trial. We will deny the petition.
Travaline filed a second amended complaint,1 alleging numerous constitutional
violations and other offenses. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice,
and we affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that Travaline’s complaint
1
Travaline’s original and first amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice.
1
failed to state a plausible claim for relief.2 C.A. No. 10-4591. On August 23, 2011,
Travaline filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District
Court to commence trial.3
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means
[exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear
and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth
v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (internal quotations omitted).
Travaline has not demonstrated that he has a clear right to the writ of mandamus.
The District Court dismissed his complaint and we affirmed. Therefore, there is no
pending decision for which mandamus would be appropriate. As we previously informed
Travaline, if he wishes to pursue further review in this case, he may do so by filing a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
Accordingly, we will deny Travaline’s mandamus petition and “motion for
summary judgment.
2
We noted that Travaline’s complaint consisted of largely unintelligible ramblings.
Because respondents did not respond to Travaline’s petition for writ of
3
mandamus, Travaline then filed a “motion for summary judgment.”
2