Third Circuit disposition — 055224np-pdf

1
HPS-11 (December 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
NO. 05-5224
________________
IN RE: ARTHUR D’AMARIO, III,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 04-cv-02221)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
December 16, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: January 4, 2006)
________________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Arthur D’Amario, III asks that we issue a writ of mandamus
compelling the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to “1)
immediately release petitioner from his invalid sentence; and 2) recuse [the district judge]
from further participation” in D’Amario’s motion to vacate, set aside, or modify his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. D’Amario has since supplemented his petition with a
motion to stay his sentence and a motion to reinstate his right to direct appeal. Because

-- 1 of 2 --

1
On December 7, 2005, during the pendency of his current petition, the district court
entered an order denying D’Amario’s § 2255 motion. Thus, to the extent that his petition
requests that the district court rule on his § 2255 motion, it is dismissed as moot.
D’Amario has other adequate means of obtaining his desired relief, we will deny him
relief.1
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
situations in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power. In re
Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001). A petitioner must show that he has a clear
and indisputable right to issuance of the writ, and it will issue only when the party
seeking the writ can show that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief
requested. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 288 F.3d 83, 91 (3d Cir. 2002).
A § 2255 motion is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to
challenge his conviction or sentence. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d
Cir. 2002). D’Amario’s mandamus petition directly challenges his conviction and
sentence and thus should be brought under § 2255. His motion to stay his sentence as
well as the motion to reinstate his direct appeal also raise claims that sound in habeas,
which should be brought in a § 2255 motion. Further, since the district court has already
ruled on D’Amario’s § 2255 motion, his request for the judge’s recusal is moot. Because
D’Amario fails to show that there are no other adequate remedies to obtain his requested
relief, his petition and pending motions are denied.

-- 2 of 2 --