Julio Christian v. ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2287
___________
IN RE: JULIO CHRISTIAN,
Petitioner
__________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03302)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. 21
on August 20, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 15, 2020)
___________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM
Julio Christian has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to grant him relief
on a complaint filed in the United States District Court or the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania. We will deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Christian is an inmate of the State Correctional Institution-Rockview, Bellefonte, Penn-
sylvania. On May 9, 2020, Christian signed and submitted a pro se complaint to the District
Court regarding prison operations and policy changes in response to COVID-19. Christian
detailed the modified prison conditions and numerous restrictions, alleging the detrimental
effects to his health and infringement of his constitutional rights. Christian then filed this
mandamus petition, dated June 16, 2020, asserting that the District Court failed to file and
docket his complaint and issue him an application form to allow him to proceed in forma
pauperis. Christian declares his entitlement to mandamus relief because the District Court,
through its inaction, effectively denied him the right to seek redress. He also seeks the
issuance of the declaratory and injunctive relief requested in his complaint.
“Traditionally, the writ of mandamus 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 Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998)
(citations omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and its use is dis-
couraged.’” Id. A petitioner must establish that there are no other adequate means to attain
the desired relief and that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Id.
The District Court’s docket reflects that Christian’s complaint was filed as of June 30,
2020 and was assigned the docket number E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 20-cv-03302. Because Chris-
tian did not remit the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma
pauperis, the District Court allowed Christian thirty days to pay the fee or file a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Christian submitted a motion and materials for his in
forma pauperis motion, filed on the docket as of August 7, 2020. It now appears that the
2
case is progressing in the District Court. Christian may pursue relief on his claims in the
normal course of District Court proceedings, and he thus has adequate means to attain relief
on his claims. We conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted here. 1
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
1
We add that Christian has filed several documents in this mandamus action requesting
relief concerning a different complaint, docketed at E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 20-cv-01424,
against the City of Philadelphia and other defendants. As Christian acknowledges, he re-
cently sought mandamus relief regarding that action in C.A. No. 20-1901. For similar
reasons stated above, Christian is not entitled to our mandamus intervention to grant the
relief that he seeks regarding that matter.
3