Opinion
Civil 1:21-CV-00720
05-12-2021
KRISHNA MOTE, Petitioner, v. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSAN E. SCHWAB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction.
The petitioner, Krishna Mote, is seeking to have a long ago dismissed civil action reopened. He is seeking to do so through a petition for a writ of mandamus. Because he cannot obtain the relief that he is seeking through such a petition, we recommend that Mote's petition for a writ of mandamus be denied.
II. Background.
In 2007, Mote filed a civil action in this court raising both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and state-law claims. See Mote v. Murtin, 4:07-cv-01571 (M.D. Pa.). On July 11, 2008, Judge Jones dismissed all the § 1983 claims with prejudice pursuant to the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mote's state-law claims, he dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice. Id. at docs. 41, 42. Mote appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but his appeal was dismissed as untimely. Id. at doc. 45. In 2017, Mote filed a motion titled “60(b)(6) Motion, ” which motion Judge Jones denied. Id. at docs. 47, 49.
In 2020, Mote filed another action in this court based on the same underlying incident that was at issue in his earlier action. See Mote v. Murtin, 3:20-cv-0092 (M.D. Pa.). Adopting a report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson recommending that the claims in that second case be dismissed because they are barred by collateral estoppel and by the statute of limitations, Judge Mariani dismissed that action with prejudice. Id. at docs. 8, 10. Mote appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed on the basis that Mote's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Mote v. Murtin, 816 Fed.Appx. 635, 637 (3d Cir. 2020). On January 11, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied Mote's petition for a writ of certiorari. Mote v. Murtin, 141 S.Ct. 1099 (2021).
On April 19, 2021, Mote began the instant action by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus claiming that this court erred in dismissing Mote v. Murtin, 4:07-cv-01571 (M.D. Pa.), under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. See doc. 1. And he requests that the court reinstate his civil rights claim. Id. at 7.
III. Discussion.
Mote is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Mote is not, however, seeking mandamus relief to compel a federal official or employee to perform a duty. Rather, he is seeking mandamus relief as an alternative to an appeal. “It is well-recognized, however, that mandamus is not a mere alternative to an appeal.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 2006). And “[t]he fact that [Mote] was unsuccessful in [his] appeal is not grounds for pursuing mandamus relief.” In re Sontag, 179 Fed.Appx. 866, 867 (3d Cir. 2006); see also In re Jimenez, 135 Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (3d Cir. 2005) (“The fact that Jimenez was unsuccessful on appeal is not grounds for mandamus relief.”).
This court does have authority under the All Writs Act to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus when “necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. But the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction and may be invoked only in aid of jurisdiction already possessed by the court on some other ground. See Jones v. Lilly, 37 F.3d 964, 967 (3d Cir. 1994) (“the writ issued must aid the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction”). Further, a “writ of mandamus is available exclusively in ‘exceptional circumstances.'” In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122, 126 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967)). And the writ is ordinarily only issued “to confine inferior courts to their lawful jurisdiction or to compel them to exercise authority when they have a duty to do so.” Id. (quoting De Masi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir.1982)). The Supreme Court has identified ‘three conditions' that must be met before a reviewing court may issue a writ of mandamus under § 1651(a) in aid of its jurisdiction: the petitioner must establish both that there is (1) ‘no other adequate means' to attain the relief sought, and (2) a right to the writ that is ‘clear and indisputable;' and, (3) even if these first two conditions are met, the reviewing court in its discretion must conclude that the writ ‘is appropriate under the circumstances.'” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 212 (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Here, Mote is not seeking a writ of mandamus to compel an inferior court to exercise its jurisdiction. Rather, he is seeking to use the writ to have this court reopen one of its own cases, which is not a proper use of a writ of mandamus. Moreover, issuing a writ of mandamus would not aid the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction; Mote does not have a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief; and given that Mote is seeking mandamus relief because his appeal was unsuccessful, a writ of mandamus is not appropriate under the circumstances.
IV. Recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court deny Mote's petition for a writ of mandamus.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.