601 F. App'x 71
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Peter Ingris sought writs of mandamus challenging actions of several Newark federal judges and a deputy clerk, alleging interference with his rights to remove multiple state cases to federal court.
- Ingris has multiple related civil and criminal matters: landlord-tenant and debt suits he removed or filed, and several state criminal prosecutions he attempted to remove under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443 and 1455. Many federal removals were docketed, litigated, remanded, or dismissed.
- In one contested matter, a deputy-in-charge (Andrea Lewis-Walker) returned materials to Ingris as improperly filed criminal complaints, which Ingris insists included notices of removal of state criminal prosecutions.
- Ingris alleged an "administrative" bar or conspiracy preventing his removals and sought orders (via mandamus) to docket and expedite his removed cases, lift the alleged bar, permit venue changes, and stop respondents’ conduct.
- The Third Circuit evaluated mandamus standards and whether Ingris had alternative remedies, concluding his filings were generally processed and that any docketing error by court staff could be addressed by routine clerk-review or district-judge appeal rather than mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel judges/clerks to accept and expedite Ingris's removals | Ingris: court staff and judges blocked or delayed his removals and docketing; extraordinary relief needed | Respondents: removals have been filed/docketed; case management is within court discretion; routine remedies exist for any clerk error | Denied — mandamus inappropriate; Ingris has other adequate remedies and no clear indisputable right |
| Whether there is an "administrative" bar preventing removals of criminal prosecutions under §§ 1443/1455 | Ingris: clerk’s return letter shows an intentional refusal to accept notices of removal of state criminal cases | Respondents: letter correctly explained that private citizens don't file federal criminal complaints; any failure to recognize a notice of removal would be a misunderstanding, not a bar | Denied — no evidence of conspiracy; misdocketing (if any) is addressable through clerk or district-judge review |
| Whether mandamus can create subject-matter jurisdiction for removed cases lacking statutory grounding | Ingris: seeks relief to effect removals regardless of statutory prerequisites | Respondents: mandamus cannot create jurisdiction where statutory removal requirements are unmet | Denied — mandamus will not be used to create subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether delay in disposition amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction justifying mandamus | Ingris: alleged undue delay in processing and disposition of his cases | Respondents: cases have been docketed, litigated, remanded, or disposed; scheduling is within court’s discretion | Denied — record does not show delay tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; standards for issuance)
- In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 383 (3d Cir. 2006) (articulating three-part mandamus test)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (district court’s case management and docket control within its discretion)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (undue delay may amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction warranting mandamus in narrow circumstances)
- Syngenta Crop Protection v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (mandamus cannot be used to create subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (orders remanding removed cases generally not appealable)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (abrogation context for interlocutory review principles)