James Roudabush, Jr. v., No. 16-1860 (3d Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

CLD-293 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 16-1860 ___________ IN RE: JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR., Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 1:15-cv-07887 & 1:16-cv-00251) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. June 16, 2016 Before: FISHER, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 29, 2016) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM James L. Roudabush, Jr., sought to file two lawsuits in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court denied him leave to do so on the grounds that he has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and did not show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Roudabush * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. has appealed from the orders. He also submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to challenge the District Court’s orders in those cases. We must deny his petition because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). Roudabush cannot claim that he has no other means to get relief where his appeals provide an adequate alternative to mandamus. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212-13 (3d Cir. 2006). 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.