Noble v. Stark et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/6/2018. (crb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Petitioner,
Civ. No. 18-958-LPS

v.
CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD P. STARK,
et al.,
Respondents.

Thomas E. Noble, FDC Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pro Se Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

. t1A
November~, 2018
Wilmington, Delaware

ska

~istric~

I.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Thomas A. Noble ("Petitioner") filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to

remove unconstitutionally appointed judges from the court. (D.I. 3) He appears prose, and has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II.

DISCUSSION
The petition is filed against the undersigned and U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews.

Petitioner states that all judges of this District Court and of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, as well as several Supreme Court Justices are ethically barred from adjudicating
any of his cases. Petitioner contends that former U.S. President Barack Obama could not have
constitutionally served as president and, therefore, all judicial appointments made during his
presidency are unconstitutional. Petitioner seeks removal of Respondents as well as the designation
of a special judicial tribunal to oversee the removal.
To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a petitioner must satisfy three
conditions. First, the party seeking issuance of a writ must demonstrate that he has "no other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires." Chenry v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367,380
(2004) (citation omitted). Next, he must carry the burden of showing that "his right to the issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable." Id. at 381 (citations omitted). Finally, "the issuing court ...
must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Id.
Petitioner does not meet the stringent requirements for mandamus relief. Therefore, the
Court finds that Petitioner failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a writ of mandamus.

III.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons the Court: (1) will deny and dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Mandamus (3); and (2) deny as moot all other motions (D.I. 4, 5).
An appropriate order follows.