in Re: Curtis Brinson v. U.S. Dist Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 1976 . In Brinson v. Vaughn, No. 08-4082 3d Cir.…

1
GLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-4325
___________
IN RE: CURTIS BRINSON,
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. Nos. 00-cv-06115 and 01-cv-03915)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 4, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 12, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Curtis Brinson, a state court prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
which seeks “enforcement of the parts of U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam’s Order
dated October 1, 2008, which the Commonwealth (Respondents) concedes they did not
appeal to the Third Circuit.” Brinson argues that because the Order granted an absolute
writ of habeas corpus, the Commonwealth could not retry him “without new charging
documents, a new preliminary hearing, and a new arraignment.”

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not warranted here. See Kerr v. U.S.
Dist Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). In Brinson v. Vaughn, No. 08-4082 (3d Cir. July 30,
2009), we reversed the District Court’s October 1, 2008 order. Thus, the District Court’s
order never went into effect. Further, we have denied Brinson’s previous petition for a
writ of mandamus based on similar arguments. See In re: Curtis Brinson, No. 09-2978
(3d Cir. July 10, 2009).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Brinson’s motion for appointment of counsel is similarly denied.

-- 2 of 2 --