in Re: Frank Sontag v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 1976 citations omitted . Only “‘exceptional…

1
DPS-159 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5448
________________
IN RE: FRANK SONTAG,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. No. 97-cv-00349)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
March 23, 2006
Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VANANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 31, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Frank Sontag pleaded no contest to state charges arising from the sexual assault of
his stepdaughter. The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied his habeas corpus petition, and we declined to issue a certificate of
appealability. Sontag has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1651 asking us to order the District Court to “address the state and local frauds,” “correct

-- 1 of 3 --

2
all the court records,” and “determine the real parties of interest in this fraud scheme.”
Sontag also asks that we issue “indictments[] to resolve these issues,” “make sure that
any State which refuses to uphold the United States Constitution faces the wrath of the
Federal Courts,” and “set up procedures that will prevent this heinous activity from
happening in the future.” Petition at 19.
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” which is generally used to “‘confine an inferior
court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its
authority when it is its duty to do so.’” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)
(citations omitted). Only “‘exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial
“usurpation of power”’” warrant the use of this extraordinary remedy. Id. (citation
omitted).
Even if the relief sought were within this Court’s authority, a petition for a writ of
mandamus is not the proper vehicle for Sontag’s claims. Most of them were previously
raised in his appeal of the District Court’s denial of his habeas petition. The fact that
Sontag was unsuccessful in that appeal is not grounds for pursuing mandamus relief. In
his single new argument, Sontag contends that the District Court based its denial of his
claims on a misunderstanding of the state court record with regard to certain testimony
given by the victim at the preliminary hearing. He alleges that this misunderstanding is
due to fraud on the part of the government. However, these arguments are more properly
brought in an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. A mandamus petition is not a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
substitute for an appeal; if a petitioner can obtain relief by an ordinary appeal, a court will
not issue the writ. See In Re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.

-- 3 of 3 --