in Re: Jesse D. Pellow v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 2010 per curiam alteration in original internal quotation…

DLD-123 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-3497
___________
IN RE: JESSE D. PELLOW,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 3:24-cv-00133)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 30, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 13, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Jesse D. Pellow has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The petition relates to
an ongoing civil case in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania where he is not a party. Respondent Mae Thompson has filed a motion to
* 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 4 --

2
dismiss the “appeal” or quash this mandamus action. For the following reasons, we will
deny the mandamus petition.
Thompson filed a civil action against her employer, Garvey Manor Nursing Home
(“Nursing Home”), claiming a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment. The
only defendant named in the complaint is the Nursing Home. Thompson named Pellow as
one of her harassers in her complaint.
Pellow filed a motion for joinder in July 2024. The District Court construed that as
a motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The motion to
intervene was denied on March 23, 2026. The District Court determined that Pellow’s
only interest in the case was as a witness since he was not identified as a defendant so
could not be found civilly liable.
On December 19, 2025, Pellow filed this petition for writ of mandamus.
He requests the following: (1) a hearing on why he cannot defend himself against
Thompson’s accusation; (2) an appeal to certain interlocutory orders of the District Court;
(3) an investigation into the origins of this case; and (4) discovery regarding who was
really behind filing the case in the District Court. Thompson filed a motion to
dismiss/quash this mandamus action.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available in extraordinary
circumstances only. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To obtain the writ, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means

-- 2 of 4 --

3
[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) (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted). A petition for a writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In
re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will
lie, mandamus will not.”).
To the extent that Pellow challenges the denial of his motion to intervene,
mandamus is inappropriate because such an order is immediately appealable under these
circumstances.1 See United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1179 (3d Cir.
1994) (holding that a district court’s denial of a motion to intervene is a final, appealable
order); see also Carlough v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 5 F.3d 707, 712 (3d Cir. 1993) (“There
is no doubt that an outsider denied intervention claimed to be of right may take an
immediate appeal. Such a proposed intervenor’s future involvement in the lawsuit . . . is
foreclosed entirely by the denial of intervention, and the order of denial thus has the
requisite finality for appellate review.”) (citation omitted).
To the extent Pellow seeks other relief, he has not shown a clear and indisputable
right to such relief. Therefore, Pellow’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
1 Pellow has filed a notice of appeal with this Court that has been transmitted to the
District Court to be treated as an appeal from the order denying his motion to intervene.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Thompson’s motion to dismiss/quash the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as
moot.

-- 4 of 4 --