In re: Kenneth Lewis, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, RESTREPO and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-067

Case: 17-3461

Document: 003112800141

Page: 1

BLD-067

Date Filed: 12/12/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3461
___________
IN RE: KENNETH WAYNE LEWIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3-17-cv-05475)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 7, 2017
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 12, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
Kenneth Lewis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the District Court to enter summary judgment in a civil case, Lewis v.

*

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

Case: 17-3461

Document: 003112800141

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/12/2017

Sessions, No. 3:17-cv-05475 (D.N.J. filed July 26, 2017).1 He also seeks an order
compelling the District Court to file an addendum in the civil case, send a file-stamped
copy of the addendum to him, and execute particular subpoenas.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner
seeking mandamus must demonstrate 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).
Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for a writ of mandamus. The
District Court docket reflects that the District Court entered a November 3, 2017 order
administratively terminating Lewis’s civil case because he did not file a complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Lewis has since submitted other
documents in the District Court, it does not appear that he has complied with the District
Court’s order, and his case remains administratively terminated. In any event, Lewis has
not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief, as he has not demonstrated a clear and
indisputable right to the writ or that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief
desired.

Although Lewis has titled his filing “Affidavit Writ of Mandamus,” we construe it as a
petition for a writ of mandamus in light of the relief that he seeks. See United States v.
Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 287-88 (3d Cir. 2003) (stating that the function of a motion, not
2
1

Case: 17-3461

Document: 003112800141

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/12/2017

For these reasons, we will deny Lewis’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

the caption, determines how it is treated).
3