In re: George Johnson, Jr.

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, GREENAWAY JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. CLD-110. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Case: 14-4600

Document: 003111887129

Page: 1

CLD-110

Date Filed: 02/25/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-4600
___________
IN RE: GEORGE JOHNSON, JR.,
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. No. 2-13-cv-05542)
____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2015
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 25, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner George Johnson, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions
for a writ of mandamus, “pursuant to the denial of a Petition and Motion for Relief from
Judgment . . . of Sept 21, 2014, Goldberg, Judge at 13-5542 of the District Court [for the

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-4600

Document: 003111887129

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/25/2015

Eastern District of Pennsylvania] . . . at paper #34 of the district court docket . . . .” 1 He
seeks an order from this Court “remanding” the matter to the District Court, and directing
the District Court Clerk to enter default against the defendants in the underlying action.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances, where the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief
sought. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378–79 (3d Cir. 2005). It
may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of
Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81, 124 S. Ct. 2576, 159 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2004)). Petitioner
has already filed an appeal from the District Court’s July 21, 2014 order in the underlying
action, seeking substantially the same relief that he seeks in his mandamus petition. That
appeal is pending. See Johnson v. Rardin, C.A. No. 14-3398 (filed July 23, 2014).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel is denied.

1

Docket #34 in E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 13-cv-05542 is dated July 21, 2014, not September 21,
2014. Nothing has been entered on that docket since July 29, 2014.
2