in Re: Eileen Vey v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 2010 per curiam internal quotation marks

DLD-370 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3133
___________
IN RE: EILEEN VEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 4, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 1, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Eileen Vey has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court for an
order transferring a residence to her. More specifically, she asks the Court to order a
person she identifies as Jerry Tyskiewiez, Director of Services, Department of Real
Estate, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to transfer to her a house from her former husband. Vey
states that her former husband has suffered a heart attack and that bill collectors will take
* 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
the house before she can claim it through his will. She has attached a document to her
petition that purports to be a copy of the will.
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). A petitioner
seeking mandamus must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the
relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and
(3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S.
183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for a writ of mandamus as Vey has
not shown a clear and indisputable right to the writ or that she has no other adequate
means to obtain the relief desired. For these reasons, we will deny Vey’s petition for a
writ of mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --