PA Child Care, LLC v., No. 12-4452 (3d Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ECO-020 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-4452 _____________ In Re: PA CHILD CARE, LLC; WESTERN PA CHILD CARE, LLC; MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES, Petitioners _____________ Petition for Writ of Mandamus Directed to the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Nos. 3-09-cv-00286, 3-09-cv-00291, 3-09-cv-00357, 3-09-cv-00630, 3-09-cv-02535 and 3-10-cv-00797) _____________ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21 December 19, 2012 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: January 18, 2013) _____________ OPINION OF THE COURT _____________ PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), directing the District Court to set aside its discovery order entered on October 31, 2012, and ordering certain discovery to be produced, namely expunged juvenile records. Further, they seek an order directing the District Court to permit their Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1977), defense. Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remed[y]. . . . reserved for really extraordinary causes. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947). It is well established that mandamus may only issue where (1) petitioners have no other adequate means to attain the relief they seek; (2) their right to mandamus is clear and indisputable; and (3) exercising discretion, we are satisfied that the mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, (2004)). Petitioners have failed to satisfy these requirements. Petitioners have another appropriate avenue for relief direct appeal after the entry of a final judgment. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. Petitioners are seeking just such a substitute here.1 For the foregoing reasons, we decline to employ one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal, id. at 380, to address the parties contentions, and will deny the petition. 1 We express no opinion as to the seriousness of the deprivation of a defense and the denial of discovery deemed important to petitioners case. We note only that direct appeal of such issues is the proper course. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.