In re: David Kissi v. Pramco II LLC et al., C.A. No. 09-1685. Kissi has now filed a

The Delaware District Court took judicial notice that the United States District Court1
for the District of Maryland has permanently enjoined Kissi from continuing or instituting
ELD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-3425
IN RE: DAVID KISSI,
Petitioner
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 08-cv-00833)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 5, 2009
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed November 30, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
David Kissi, a pro se federal prisoner currently incarcerated in Ohio, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in November
2008. His suit is “derivative of” bankruptcy proceedings that took place in the District
Court for the District of Maryland. One of the defendants, DLA Piper, filed a motion to1

-- 1 of 3 --

any actions in any federal court that constitute a collateral attack on any order of
judgment of the District Court for the District of Maryland. Kissi is required to seek
approval prior to the filing of any lawsuit, which he has failed to do.
2
dismiss or in the alternative transfer the case to the District of Maryland. The District
Court granted the motion and transferred the case to the District of Maryland. Kissi filed
a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Kissi then appealed and
we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Kissi v. Pramco II LLC et al., C.A.
No. 09-1685. Kissi has now filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the
District Court abused its discretion in transferring the case.
We have held that “mandamus is . . . the appropriate mechanism for reviewing an
allegedly improper transfer order.” In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 300 F.3d 368, 378
(3d Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, mandamus is a
drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of situations in response to an act
amounting to a judicial usurpation of power. In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir.
2001). “Generally, a writ will only issue if the district court did not have the power to
enter the order, and then only if the party seeking the writ meets its burden to demonstrate
that its right to the writ is clear and indisputable.” Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton &
Assocs., 5 F.3d 28, 30 (3d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The District Court’s decision to transfer the complaint to the District of Maryland
did not amount to a judicial usurpation of power. The District Court transferred Kissi’s
complaint because it found that the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in

-- 2 of 3 --

While Kissi argues that some of the Defendants named in his complaint are2
incorporated in Delaware, the District Court found that all of Kissi’s claims related to a
bankruptcy filing in Maryland and a federal judge who sits in Maryland. We agree.
3
Maryland and that none of the Defendants resided in the judicial district of Delaware.2
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing requirements for venue when jurisdiction is not based
solely on diversity of citizenship). Inasmuch as venue appears to be proper in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, Kissi cannot show a clear and
indisputable right to the writ. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --