669 F. App'x 629
3d Cir.2016Background
- Pro se petitioners Dennis Campbell and Mindy Zied‑Campbell repeatedly litigated claims about federal and state medical and disability benefits across multiple suits.
- Three district-court matters are central: E.D. Pa. Civ. A. Nos. 88‑4820 (summary judgment for defendants), 89‑7508 (dismissed), and 12‑3700 (dismissed).
- After repeated post-judgment filings, each presiding District Judge entered a filing injunction barring further filings by the petitioners in those cases.
- Petitioners appealed one injunction (No. 88‑4820) and that appeal remains pending; they did not appeal the injunctions in the other two matters.
- Petitioners filed a mandamus petition in this Court asking it to vacate the three filing injunctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to vacate district-court filing injunctions | Mandamus should set aside the three injunctions | Mandamus is improper because appeal is the ordinary remedy and petitioners have or had appellate avenues | Denied: mandamus unavailable because normal appellate process exists or existed |
| Whether lack of a timely appeal makes mandamus available | Petitioners argue they cannot obtain relief because appeals were not perfected for two injunctions | Respondents contend expiration of appeal time does not transform relief into mandamus relief | Denied: expiration of appeal time does not alone justify mandamus |
| Whether mandamus can substitute for appeal | Petitioners effectively seek review of district orders via mandamus | Respondents argue mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and is extraordinary relief | Denied: mandamus is drastic and not a substitute for appeal |
| Whether petitioners have a clear and indisputable right to the writ | Petitioners claim entitlement to vacatur of injunctions | Respondents assert petitioners lack the required clear and indisputable right and alternative remedies exist | Denied: petitioners did not meet mandamus standards |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary cases)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus requires no other adequate means and a clear and indisputable right)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (if an appeal lies, mandamus will not lie)
- Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1992) (allowing appeal time to expire does not automatically make mandamus available)
- Zied-Campbell v. Pennsylvania, [citation="514 F. App'x 154"] (3d Cir. 2013) (background on petitioners' prior litigation regarding benefits)