In Re: Carroway ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-21-2006
    In Re: Carroway
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-3001
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "In Re: Carroway " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 717.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/717
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    APS-261                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ________________
    NO. 06-3001
    ________________
    IN RE: DAVID CARROWAY,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey
    (Related to D. N.J. Civ. No. 06-cv-00614)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
    June 29, 2006
    Before: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
    (Filed: July 21, 2006)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    David Carroway filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
    civil rights in connection with the open-court publicizing of his status as an informant on
    two separate occasions in the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the time of the incidents,
    Carroway was appearing before the court in criminal proceedings pending against him.
    His complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim by the United States District
    Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court found that all named defendants
    were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment or judicial or prosecutorial
    immunity.
    Carroway has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651
    asking us to direct the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office to “proceed with an
    investigation of the actions, inactions, [and] behaviors” of the defendants in his civil suit.
    The “scope of the investigation” should “encompass the necessary remedies,” including,
    “the dismissal of criminal charges for all violations charged to the Petitioner.” Carroway
    also asks that we “order the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Superior Court of Morris
    County, the Superior Court of Union County, and [t]he Honorable Joseph A. Falcone,
    and [Prosecutor] Victor R. Jusino, Esq., to recuse themselves from . . . Petitioner’s
    criminal matters.” Petition at 4, 9.
    Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” which is generally 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.’” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402
    (1976) (citations omitted). Only “‘exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial
    “usurpation of power”’” warrant the use of this extraordinary remedy. 
    Id. (citation omitted).
    The relief sought by Carroway is well outside the scope of the writ.
    To the extent that Carroway’s requests for relief may be read as asking us to
    reverse the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint, this petition is not the proper
    vehicle. To be entitled to the writ, a petitioner must show that there are no other adequate
    2
    means to obtain the relief sought. See Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 
    972 F.2d 519
    , 522-23
    (3d Cir. 1992). A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal; if a petitioner can
    obtain relief by an ordinary appeal, a court will not issue the writ. See In Re Ford Motor
    Co., 
    110 F.3d 954
    , 957 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, Carroway has an alternate means to raise
    his challenge to the District Court’s ruling in the form of an appeal. Indeed, Carroway
    appealed the District Court’s decision and his appeal is currently pending. See C.A.
    No. 06-3087.
    Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-3001

Judges: Sloviter, McKee, Fisher

Filed Date: 7/21/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024