In Re: Emerita Gueson

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. CLD-354

Case: 14-3578

Document: 003111728578

Page: 1

CLD-354

Date Filed: 09/05/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3578
___________
EMERITA T. GUESON, M.D.,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2:13-cv-04638)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 28, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 5, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
In the Court of Common Pleas for Bucks County, Bank of America, N.A., filed a
mortgage foreclosure suit against Emerita T. Gueson relating to her property at 6305
Forge Turn, Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Initial efforts at service failed, but a process server
ultimately personally served Gueson. She did not defend against the suit, and judgment
was entered in favor of Bank of America, N.A., and against Gueson. Gueson then
removed the matter to federal court and sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Case: 14-3578

Document: 003111728578

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/05/2014

Bank of America, N.A., filed a motion to remand the case, arguing, inter alia, that
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 barred the suit. The District Court agreed, granted the
motion to remand for that reason and others, and denied Gueson’s motions for relief as
moot.
Gueson filed an appeal, which Bank of America, N.A., sought to dismiss. Gueson
opposed the motion, filed a document in support of her appeal, and presented a motion
for emergency injunctive relief relating to conditions at the Bensalem property. We
granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, concluding that the remand order was not
reviewable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We also denied Gueson’s motion for
emergency injunctive relief as moot. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gueson, C.A. No. 134347 (order entered Mar. 18, 2014). We denied Gueson’s subsequent motion for
rehearing. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gueson, C.A. No. 13-4347 (order entered Aug. 20,
2014).
Gueson now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus. Gueson argues that the
writ should issue because the District Court erred in light of the service issue in the state
court (she also asserts more generally that pro se litigants are at a disadvantage in state
courts). Gueson further contends that the District Court erred in concluding that remand
was proper because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the suit. She claims that she has
suffered harm to her health and her property (she lists items in the Bensalem property that
she wants returned and states that “6305 should be restored” to an earlier condition).

1

The doctrine derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2

Case: 14-3578

Document: 003111728578

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/05/2014

As Gueson recognizes, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S.
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court,
mandamus traditionally may be “used . . . only ‘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.’” Id. (citations omitted). To obtain mandamus relief, 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, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Gueson does not meet the standard for mandamus relief. Essentially, through her
mandamus petition, Gueson seeks to appeal again from the District Court’s decision or to
somehow continue the appeal that we previously dismissed. However, mandamus is not
a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)
(citations omitted); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we
must deny her petition.

3