Wayne Pettaway v., No. 15-2978 (3d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
BLD-341 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 15-2978 ____________ IN RE: WAYNE PETTAWAY, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 17, 2015 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 2, 2015) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Wayne Pettaway, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus claiming that he has been “unlawfully incarcerated without the proper documentation such [as] a commi[t]ment order or a sentencing order.” He seeks immediate release from state prison and “redress” for his unlawful confinement. 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. Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show both a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). Pettaway is not entitled to this extraordinary relief. Pettaway is seeking an order from the District Court compelling state action with request to a state prisoner. A federal court . . . may not use a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981). Moreover, Pettaway has other adequate means to challenge his incarceration— either in state court or through a properly filed petition for habeas corpus, as appropriate.1 For these reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition. 1 We, of course, do not make any comment on the viability of any other motion or petition for relief, including a habeas petition, that Pettaway may choose to file. 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.
