Jason Brown v.
692 F. App'x 89
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se petitioner Jason Brown sought a writ of mandamus directing the City of Philadelphia and Community Behavioral Health (CBH) to pay him $900,000, alleging violations of his civil rights.
- Brown filed a civil complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and moved for in forma pauperis status; the District Court denied the initial affidavit as insufficient because it contained no financial information.
- Brown appealed that denial; this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Brown later submitted an amended affidavit, and the IFP motion remained pending in the District Court.
- Brown then filed this mandamus petition in the Third Circuit seeking relief against the City and CBH (and effectively urging court intervention to compel defendants to act/pay damages).
- The Third Circuit evaluated whether it had mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and whether mandamus could be used to compel state or local officials or substitute for an appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Third Circuit may issue mandamus to compel City/CBH to act or pay damages | Brown asks the court to compel city officials to act and pay $900,000 | Respondents argue federal appellate mandamus does not reach state/local officials or compel them to perform duties | Dismissed: Third Circuit lacks authority to issue mandamus directing state/local officials to act or pay damages |
| Whether Third Circuit may issue mandamus to compel District Court to rule on pending IFP motion | Brown implicitly seeks relief to force disposition of his IFP motion | District Court control; some delay due to Brown’s earlier appeal; remedy lies with District Court or a future mandamus if undue delay continues | Denied now: no mandamus because no action/omission by a district court that impedes appellate jurisdiction; Brown may renew if District Court fails to act promptly |
| Whether mandamus can substitute for an appeal of District Court final disposition | Brown seeks extraordinary relief instead of normal appellate process | Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal; plaintiff should appeal after final order | Held: Mandamus inappropriate as substitute; appellate review is the proper route after final judgment |
| Whether mandamus can compel a federal officer/agency under 28 U.S.C. §1361 | Brown did not allege any federal officer/agency action or omission | Respondents point out §1361 applies only to federal officers/agencies | Held: §1361 inapplicable; petitioner alleges only city officials, so mandamus to federal officers is unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to confine lower courts to lawful jurisdiction)
- Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967) (mandamus may compel inferior courts to exercise authority when duty exists)
- United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1981) (focus on whether district court action impedes appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1998) (mandamus cannot substitute for an ordinary appeal)
- In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue mandamus directing state officials)
- White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to direct state courts or officers to perform duties)
- Demos v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991) (mandamus cannot be issued to a state court)