Claude Townsend v., No. 14-3368 (3d Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

BLD-359 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 14-3368 ___________ IN RE: CLAUDE TOWNSEND, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-02158) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 14, 2014 Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Opinion filed: August 27, 2014) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM On January 15, 2014, we issued a judgment vacating the District Court s order affirming the denial of Social Security benefits to petitioner Claude Townsend, and directing the District Court to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. See Townsend v. Sec y U.S. Dep t of Health & Human Servs., 553 F. App x 166 (3d Cir. 2014). In lieu of a mandate, a certified copy of the judgment was filed on March 10, 2014. Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 79.4, the District Court notified the 1 parties that if the mandate or judgment directs a disposition other than an affirmance, the prevailing party shall submit an order implementing the mandate or judgment. Accordingly, Townsend, as the prevailing party, was required to submit to the District Court a proposed order remanding the matter to the Commissioner. Apparently failing to understand the notice, Townsend failed to comply. Instead, on July 24, 2014, Townsend filed the instant mandamus petition, seeking an order directing the District Court to remand the matter to the Commissioner. 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). Townsend clearly has an adequate means of obtaining the relief he desires. As the District Court noted in its Judicial Notice to Townsend filed on July 29, 2014, upon the filing of a proposed order by Townsend, the matter will be remanded to the Commissioner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. 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.