Curtis Brinson v.

GLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-4325 ___________ IN RE: CURTIS BRINSON, Petitioner ____________________________________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. Nos. 00-cv-06115 and 01-cv-03915) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 4, 2013 Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 12, 2013) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Curtis Brinson, a state court prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which seeks “enforcement of the parts of U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam’s Order dated October 1, 2008, which the Commonwealth (Respondents) concedes they did not appeal to the Third Circuit.” Brinson argues that because the Order granted an absolute writ of habeas corpus, the Commonwealth could not retry him “without new charging documents, a new preliminary hearing, and a new arraignment.” 1 The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not warranted here. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). In Brinson v. Vaughn, No. 08-4082 (3d Cir. July 30, 2009), we reversed the District Court’s October 1, 2008 order. Thus, the District Court’s order never went into effect. Further, we have denied Brinson’s previous petition for a writ of mandamus based on similar arguments. See In re: Curtis Brinson, No. 09-2978 (3d Cir. July 10, 2009). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Brinson’s motion for appointment of counsel is similarly denied. 2