Third Circuit disposition — 092988np-pdf

1
HLD-150 (August 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2988
___________
IN RE: HECTOR L. HUERTAS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 06-cv-04676, 08-cv-00244, 08-cv-02009,
08-cv-03959, 09-cv-02604)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 31, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 15, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Hector Huertas, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus challenging the procedure of the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey for issuing subpoenas. We will deny the mandamus petition.
Huertas is the plaintiff in five civil actions pending in District Court.

-- 1 of 2 --

The District Court dockets for the five cases in which Huertas seeks subpoenas1
reflect that on July 7 and 8, 2009, he filed requests to the Clerk to issue signed subpoenas.
He has not moved the District Court for any relief in connection with these requests.
Huertas states that he sought subpoenas in connection with these lawsuits and that the
Clerk’s Office required that he complete the captions on the forms before the court would
issue the subpoenas. Huertas asserts that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3),
the Clerk’s Office should have issued the subpoenas in blank form. Huertas contends that
the District Court’s internal procedure results in the unnecessary delay of discovery. He
asks this Court to set aside the procedure.
The writ of mandamus traditionally has been used to confine an inferior
court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its
authority when it is its duty to do so. In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted). The writ is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and its use is
discouraged. Id. A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the
desired relief and that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141.
Applying these standards, Huertas is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Huertas has not sought any relief in the District Court based on that Court’s alleged
internal procedures. Because Huertas has other means to attain the desired relief,1
mandamus relief is unwarranted. See id. (stating that where there are practical avenues for
seeking relief that are untried, a mandamus petition will ordinarily be denied).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --