Third Circuit disposition — 241469np-pdf

DLD-112 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1469
___________
IN RE: RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to Civ. No. 3-23-cv-00037)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 18, 2024
Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed April 26, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Raphael Mendez has for many years been involuntarily committed to
the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (FMC Rochester).1 In March 2024,
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1 In 1990, Mendez was indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for assault with
a deadly weapon and related offenses. He was later found not competent to stand trial
and ultimately committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus relating to his ongoing proceedings in both the
federal and territorial courts of the Virgin Islands. In the petition, he asserts that the
District Court of the Virgin Islands and the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands are
“disregarding the appropriate and necessary laws in abuse of their discretionary powers,”
Pet. 1, ECF No. 4, and “delaying, hindering and obstructing justice,” id. 5. He asks us to
compel the courts to “tell [him] why they are refusing to debate or refute [the] authorities
[he] has been citing[].” Id. 2. According to Mendez, mandamus relief is warranted
because the courts’ refusal to do so amounts to “judicial usurpation.” Id. 5.
We will deny the mandamus petition. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy
available only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d
372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain the writ, a petitioner must show that he has “no other
adequate means to obtain the desired relief” and that “the right to issuance is clear and
indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Mendez has not made this showing. He essentially contends that both the
territorial court and the District Court have improperly applied the law. But mandamus is
not a substitute for appeal. See id. at 77. Moreover, this Court does not have mandamus
jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991) (explaining that the writ
must be “in aid of our jurisdiction” (quotation marks omitted)); Vooys v. Bentley, 901
F.3d 172, 184 (3d Cir. 2018) (recognizing that this Court no longer has certiorari
jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands).
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.

-- 2 of 2 --