in Re: William Keisling v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 773 3d Cir. 1984 . 2 circumstances. See In re Diet…

CLD-095 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1106
___________
IN RE: WILLIAM KEISLING,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 1:09-cv-02181)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 14, 2010
Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 9, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
In November 2009, Petitioner William Keisling filed a pro se civil action in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On January 11, 2010, William Keisling petitioned this
Court for “Extraordinary Relief/Change of Venue” ordering the transfer of his civil action
to a District Court located outside of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will
deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary

-- 1 of 3 --

While Keisling labeled his filing as a “Petition for Extraordinary Relief/ Change1
of Venue,” we may treat the filing as a mandamus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651;
Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 773 (3d Cir. 1984).
2
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.1
2005). To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must satisfy three conditions. First, he
must “have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Second, he must show that his
right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id. Third, the reviewing court must conclude
that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Id.
Keisling’s mandamus petition is a request to change venue. The express terms in
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provide that a federal district court may transfer civil actions from
one federal district court to another. While the Supreme Court has found that a federal
court of appeals may effect a transfer by direct order where “unusual circumstances”
require “extraordinary action,” see Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 382 U.S. 362, 364-
65 (1966), no such unusual circumstances appear based on Keisling’s petition. To the
extent that Keisling may seek to disqualify the District Judges sitting in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania based on alleged bias and prejudice, his petition does not
establish that a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that
the District Judges’ impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a);
In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 220 (3d Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, we determine that Keisling has not met his burden of showing that he

-- 2 of 3 --

3
has no other adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks or that his right to issuance of
the writ is “clear and indisputable.” As a result, we shall deny his mandamus petition.

-- 3 of 3 --