Third Circuit disposition — 221703np-pdf

BLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-1703
___________
IN RE: ERNEST WOODALL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2-11-cv-00607)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 12, 2022
Before: MCKEE1, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 7, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Ernest Woodall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to order the
District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas claim we have already rejected.
We will deny the petition.
1 Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Woodall is serving a sentence of 32 to 80 years in prison after being convicted of
four counts of attempted murder. After unsuccessfully challenging his convictions in
state court, he filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court, raising,
inter alia, a claim based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). The District
Court denied the petition, and we denied Woodall’s request for a certificate of
appealability. See C.A. No. 13-4721. Woodall has since filed two unsuccessful
mandamus petitions seeking to reargue his IAD claim. See C.A. Nos. 14-4838 & 16-
2788. In the petition before us, Woodall once again seeks to reargue his IAD claim.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we have the discretion to grant only
when the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and no other adequate
means to obtain it. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
Woodall does not have a clear and indisputable right to a hearing on a meritless § 2254
claim that has already been litigated and rejected. Accordingly, we will deny the petition.

-- 2 of 2 --