Third Circuit disposition — 251753np-pdf

ALD-140 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1753
___________
IN RE: CALEB McGILLVARY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-01497)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 1, 2025
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 12, 2025)
_________
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In February 2025, Petitioner Caleb McGillvary filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He sought a declaratory judgment
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that he qualifies for protection from removal under 8
U.S.C. § 1359 and an injunction preventing the defendants from removing him from the
* 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 2 --

2
United States. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
McGillvary then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. He explains
that the District Court Clerk erroneously characterized his complaint as a habeas petition
and asks us to compel the District Court to correct the docket entry to reflect the true
nature of the cause of action.
We will deny the petition. Although McGillvary is correct that the Clerk
mistakenly described an exhibit to his complaint as an exhibit to his habeas petition, see
ECF No. 2, this was merely a clerical error; the error does not affect the nature of the
filing. Indeed, the District Court specifically recognized that McGillvary’s filing was not
a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, this case does not present the type
of “extraordinary circumstances” in which the drastic remedy of mandamus is warranted.
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).

-- 2 of 2 --