in Re: Darrell Sanford Prince v. U.S. Gov’t, 697 F. App’x 134, 135 3d Cir. 2017 per curiam . In 2020, Prince filed…

DLD-125 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-1437
___________
IN RE: DARRELL SANFORD PRINCE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:16-cv-06702)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 13, 2023
Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 21, 2023)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In 2016, Darrell Prince filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, raising claims related to that year’s presidential election. We
affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of standing. See Prince v.
U.S. Gov’t, 697 F. App’x 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
In 2020, Prince filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of
* 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 --

Columbia, raising claims related to that year’s presidential election. The district court’s
order of dismissal, predicated on Prince’s lack of standing, was affirmed on appeal. See
Prince v. Kobach, 848 F. App’x 2, 2-3 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam order).
In 2023, Prince filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Among other
things, Prince requests that this Court reopen the above-referenced cases, “quell public
Controversy over the Election of 2020, and 2016,” answer certain questions about
“Legislative Apportionment” and “Election Mechanics,” and “[i]ssue orders for first-
priority processing of government records or Agency oversight to aid in investigations[.]”
We conclude, after careful review of the record and Prince’s petition, that he
satisfies none of the criteria for mandamus relief. Cf. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S.
183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (requiring “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”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

-- 2 of 2 --