Peter Wirs v. ( 2020 )

DLD-021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-3119
___________
IN RE: PETER J. WIRS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2:19-cv-04072)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 29, 2020
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 6, 2020)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
In September 2019, Peter J. Wirs initiated a proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking confirmation of an
arbitration award allegedly entered against the Republican National Committee. The
District Court denied relief, holding that Wirs’ claims were barred by the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine and res judicata. Wirs appealed, and we affirmed. In re Motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award, 823 F. App’x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2020) (not precedential). In
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
October 2020, Wirs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, requesting that
we direct the District Court to comply with 9 U.S.C. § 9 and thereby confirm the
arbitration award.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the
desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.”
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus 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 Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).
The circumstances here are not extraordinary, and Wirs has failed to show that he
has no other adequate means to challenge the District Court’s refusal to confirm the
arbitration award. In fact, Wirs previously sought our review of the District Court’s
decision. His lack of success in that appeal does not mean that there is no mechanism
available to seek relief. To the extent that a litigant is dissatisfied with the disposition of
an appeal, a proper course of action is to petition for rehearing, which Wirs has already
done, 1 or to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
In sum, Wirs has made no showing that the right to issuance of the writ under these
circumstances is “clear and indisputable.”
constitute binding precedent.
1
We note that several of the arguments that Wirs makes in his mandamus petition were
2
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
included in his rehearing petition.
3