Noble v. Stark et al, No. 1:2018cv00958 - Document 10 (D. Del. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/6/2018. (crb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Noble v. Stark et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner, Civ. No. 18-958-LPS v. CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD P. STARK, et al., Respondents. Thomas E. Noble, FDC Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pro Se Petitioner. MEMORANDUM OPINION . t1A November~, 2018 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com ska ~istric~ I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Thomas A. Noble ("Petitioner") filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to remove unconstitutionally appointed judges from the court. (D.I. 3) He appears prose, and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. II. DISCUSSION The petition is filed against the undersigned and U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews. Petitioner states that all judges of this District Court and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as well as several Supreme Court Justices are ethically barred from adjudicating any of his cases. Petitioner contends that former U.S. President Barack Obama could not have constitutionally served as president and, therefore, all judicial appointments made during his presidency are unconstitutional. Petitioner seeks removal of Respondents as well as the designation of a special judicial tribunal to oversee the removal. To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361, a petitioner must satisfy three conditions. First, the party seeking issuance of a writ must demonstrate that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires." Chenry v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367,380 (2004) (citation omitted). Next, he must carry the burden of showing that "his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." Id. at 381 (citations omitted). Finally, "the issuing court ... must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Id. Petitioner does not meet the stringent requirements for mandamus relief. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons the Court: (1) will deny and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (3); and (2) deny as moot all other motions (D.I. 4, 5). An appropriate order follows.
]]>
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.
