In re: Jason Brown, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, GREENAWAY JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. BLD-171

Case: 17-1418

Document: 003112622909

Page: 1

BLD-171

Date Filed: 05/15/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1418
___________
IN RE: JASON BROWN,
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. 2-16-cv-04528)
_____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 23, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 15, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Jason Brown, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the City of
Philadelphia (hereafter “City”) and Community Behavioral Health of Philadelphia

*

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

Case: 17-1418

Document: 003112622909

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/15/2017

(hereafter “CBH”) to pay him $900.000. We will dismiss the petition.
Brown’s mandamus petition is anything but a model of clarity. As best we can
decipher, it appears that Brown takes issue with some policies put forth by the City and
CBH. Brown asserts that these policies violate certain of his civil rights and, in fact, he
filed a civil action against the City and CBH in August 2016. See Brown v. City of
Phila., et al., E.D. Civ. No. 16-cv-04528. Brown sought leave to proceed with the
complaint in forma pauperis. However, because the affidavit of poverty provided by
Brown contained no financial information, the District Court concluded that it was
“insufficient” for purposes of determining Brown’s ability to pay the associated filing
fees. An order was thus entered denying the motion without prejudice. We dismissed
Brown’s appeal from that order for lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
See C.A. No. 16-3508. Brown has since submitted an amended affidavit supporting his
in forma pauperis motion, which remains pending before the District Court.
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
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 or to compel it to exercise
its authority when it is its duty to do so.’” Id. (quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90,
2

Case: 17-1418

Document: 003112622909

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/15/2017

95 (1967)).
Brown does not allege an action or omission by a United States District Court
within this circuit over which we might exercise our mandamus authority. Cf. United
States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir. 1981) (focal question for federal appellate
court is whether action of District Court impedes appellate jurisdiction granted in some
other provision of law). Even if we broadly construed his petition as directed at the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we would deny mandamus relief.
While Brown’s in forma pauperis motion has been pending in the District Court for
several months, we note that the pendency of his appeal from the original dismissal
accounted for some of that time. We are confident that the District Court will consider
Brown’s motion without undue delay. Brown is free to file a mandamus petition seeking
to compel the District Court to rule on his pending in forma pauperis motion if an order is
not forthcoming in the near future.
Of course, if Brown is found eligible for pauper status, the District Court will then
screen his complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown’s
recourse for any dissatisfaction with the District Court’s disposition of the claims in his
complaint must then be had through the appellate process after the court’s entry of a final
order. See In re: Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F. 3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998) (mandamus
relief is not available as a substitute for an appeal).
Moreover, Brown does not allege an action or omission by a federal officer,
3

Case: 17-1418

Document: 003112622909

Page: 4

Date Filed: 05/15/2017

employee, or agency over which a United States District Court would have mandamus
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”). Brown asks only
that we issue a writ of mandamus compelling “action” by city officials. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651 and Kerr, we lack mandamus authority to compel the respondents to perform their
duties, or, as Brown would have it, to pay him damages as a sanction for failing to
perform those duties in accordance with his wishes. See, e.g., In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d
309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (explaining that District Court “had no jurisdiction”
to “issue a writ of mandamus compelling action by a state official”); see also White v.
Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (explaining that federal courts
“lack[ ] jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty”); Demos v. United States
Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]his court
lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.”). That argument is one
for the District Court to consider in evaluating the merits of Brown’s civil complaint.
Accordingly, as we lack jurisdiction to grant the request for mandamus relief, we
will dismiss the petition.

4