Darrell Prince v., No. 23-1437 (3d Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL DLD-125 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 23-1437 ___________ IN RE: DARRELL SANFORD PRINCE, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:16-cv-06702) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 13, 2023 Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 21, 2023) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM In 2016, Darrell Prince filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, raising claims related to that year’s presidential election. We affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of standing. See Prince v. U.S. Gov’t, 697 F. App’x 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam). In 2020, Prince filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Columbia, raising claims related to that year’s presidential election. The district court’s order of dismissal, predicated on Prince’s lack of standing, was affirmed on appeal. See Prince v. Kobach, 848 F. App’x 2, 2-3 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam order). In 2023, Prince filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Among other things, Prince requests that this Court reopen the above-referenced cases, “quell public Controversy over the Election of 2020, and 2016,” answer certain questions about “Legislative Apportionment” and “Election Mechanics,” and “[i]ssue orders for firstpriority processing of government records or Agency oversight to aid in investigations[.]” We conclude, after careful review of the record and Prince’s petition, that he satisfies none of the criteria for mandamus relief. Cf. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (requiring “that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
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.
