Ernest Woodall v., No. 22-1703 (3d Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT PRECEDENTIAL BLD-149 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1703 ___________ IN RE: ERNEST WOODALL, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 2-11-cv-00607) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 12, 2022 Before: MCKEE 1, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 7, 2022) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM Ernest Woodall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to order the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas claim we have already rejected. We will deny the petition. 1 Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. * Woodall is serving a sentence of 32 to 80 years in prison after being convicted of four counts of attempted murder. After unsuccessfully challenging his convictions in state court, he filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court, raising, inter alia, a claim based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). The District Court denied the petition, and we denied Woodall’s request for a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 13-4721. Woodall has since filed two unsuccessful mandamus petitions seeking to reargue his IAD claim. See C.A. Nos. 14-4838 & 162788. In the petition before us, Woodall once again seeks to reargue his IAD claim. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we have the discretion to grant only when the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and no other adequate means to obtain it. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). Woodall does not have a clear and indisputable right to a hearing on a meritless § 2254 claim that has already been litigated and rejected. Accordingly, we will deny the 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.