in Re: Shawn Christy v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 , superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir.…

CLD-121 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-1083
___________
IN RE: SHAWN CHRISTY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 3:18-cr-00223-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 6, 2023
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 23, 2023)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Shawn Christy seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to act. We will deny the petition.
* 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 4 --

2
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only extraordinary
circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
Generally, mandamus is a means “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.” Id. (cleaned up). “A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must
have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to
issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996),
superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997).
Christy’s petition is far from a model of clarity. While he seeks to compel the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to “expedite [a]
current pending habeas corpus petition” he purportedly raised in M.D. Pa. Crim. No.
3:18-cr-00223, it does not appear that habeas proceedings are pending in that case.
Further, the District Court has been ruling on his many filings. See, e.g., ECF No. 402.
Christy also requests that this Court order the District Court to act on matters raised in
various motions and prison grievances.1 However, he has not demonstrated that any
1 To the extent that this request involves matters raised in ECF Nos. 351, 352, 353, 354,
355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377,
378, 380, 382, 383, 384, 385, 387, 388, 390, 391, 393, 394, 396, 397, 398, 400, or 401,
the District Court entered an order denying those motions on February 3, 2023, see ECF
No. 402, and therefore no mandamus relief is available. See Blanciak v. Allegheny
Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). Christy has also attached some
documents referencing M.D. Civ. No. 3:22-cv-01681. We take judicial notice of that
case. See Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414, 416 n.3 (3d
Cir. 1988) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of the record from previous court

-- 2 of 4 --

3
delay in the District Court has been excessive or that he cannot pursue the relief he seeks
via an appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003)
(explaining that the writ of mandamus “must not be used as a mere substitute for appeal”)
(cleaned up).2 Indeed, Christy has filed a counseled appeal from his convictions and
sentences, and that appeal remains pending. See United States v. Christy, C.A. No. 20-
2601.
Christy also references correspondence he attempted to send to a state courthouse.
To the extent that he seeks this Court’s intervention in a pending or completed state court
action, we lack authority to grant such relief. See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d
Cir. 2000) (explaining that, ordinarily, federal courts of appeal “lack appellate
jurisdiction over their state counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally
inappropriate”); White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)
(explaining that a federal court “lack[s] jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its
duty”).
proceedings). However, the District Court has already dismissed Christy’s complaint in
that case, and there is nothing else pending in that case for this Court to order be
expedited or otherwise acted upon. See Blanciak, 77 F.3d at 698–99.
2 Relatedly, Christy requests to have his case assigned to a different District Court judge.
However, he has asserted no facts upon which a reasonable person “would conclude that
the [judges’] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd.,
368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, because Christy has not shown a clear and indisputable right to
mandamus relief, or that no other means exist to attain the relief he desires, we will deny
his petition. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).
Christy’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for emergency consideration are
denied. To the extent he requests any other relief, it is also denied.

-- 4 of 4 --