Jay Thomas V. , 461 F. App'x 166 ( 2012 )

BLD-091 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4498
___________
IN RE: JAY L. THOMAS,
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. 2-11-cv-03905)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 20, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 8, 2012)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Jay Thomas, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking
this Court to direct the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey to enter a default judgment in a civil action Thomas filed in that court. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Thomas filed a complaint in District Court against Northeastern University. On
July 27, 2011, the District Court dismissed Thomas’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Thomas appealed. While his appeal was pending, Thomas filed motions for
leave to file an amended complaint and a motion for a default judgment. On December
15, 2011, the District Court dismissed Thomas’ motions for lack of jurisdiction in light of
his pending appeal. Thomas appealed the December 15, 2011, order. On January 10,
2012, this Court affirmed the District Court’s July 27, 2011, order dismissing Thomas’
original complaint. His appeal of the December 15, 2011, order is pending.
On December 20, 2011, Thomas filed in this Court a “Petition or Application for
Writ of Madamus[sic] for Default Judgment 28 USC 1651” asking us to compel the Clerk
of the District Court to enter a default judgment in his underlying action. The writ of
mandamus traditionally “has been used ‘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.’” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “The writ
is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and its use is discouraged.’” Id. (citations
omitted). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the
desired relief and that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141.
Thomas has not made such a showing. Thomas’ appeal of the District Court order
denying his motion for a default judgment is pending. Because Thomas has other
adequate means to attain relief, a writ of mandamus is not available.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
2