in Re: James Robert Tice v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 894 3d Cir. 1981 explaining that, “[b]efore entertaining” a

DLD-060 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2922
___________
IN RE: JAMES ROBERT TICE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 30, 2025
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 21, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se Petitioner James Tice filed a petition for writ of mandamus related to events
which he claims can be traced back to his arrest as a juvenile in 1991. He seeks an order
that, among other things, directs the District Court to vacate all judgments; issue a writ of
habeas corpus under § 2241 “to remove all restrictions”; declares all juvenile and adult
proceedings void ab initio; recognizes his “sovereign, prophetic and ceremonial status”;
* 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 3 --

2
refers judicial misconduct and treasonous acts to the United States Department of Justice
and the Judicial Council; orders reparations and restitution in excess of $3 trillion; and
ensures “diplomatic protection and enforcement of treaty obligations.” Tice has also filed
a motion for the appointment of counsel and other relief.
Section 1651 confers jurisdiction on this Court to issue a writ of mandamus “in aid
of” our jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. “The writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy
reserved for only the most extraordinary situations.” In re Abbott Labs., 96 F.4th 371,
379 (3d Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is not a substitute
for the appeal process. See In re Kensington Int'l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
We have the discretion to grant a writ only if the petitioner shows: “(1) a clear and
indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, (2) a lack of an alternate avenue for
adequate relief, and (3) a likelihood of irreparable injury.” In re Abbott Labs., 96 F.4th at
379 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Tice does not meet the standard to grant his mandamus petition. First, there is no
pending action over which a writ of mandamus might aid our jurisdiction. See United
States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981) (explaining that, “[b]efore
entertaining” a petition for a writ of mandamus, “we must identify a jurisdiction that the
issuance of the writ might assist”).1 Second, Tice has not shown that he has no alternative
1 The District Court denied Tice’s most recent federal habeas petition as second or
successive in February 2025, and we denied a certificate of appealability in August 2025.
Tice also filed two civil rights cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania. We affirmed
the dismissal of the first; Tice’s appeal of the second remains pending.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
avenue for the relief he seeks, let alone that he has an indisputable right to such relief.
Third, to the extent Tice asks us to direct action by state courts, we lack authority to grant
such relief. See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that federal
courts of appeal ordinarily “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”). Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus
petition. Further, Tice’s pending motion is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --