in Re: Lamar Caldwell v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Accordingly, we will deny the petition.…

DLD-276 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-2682
________________
IN RE: LAMAR CALDWELL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civil Action No. 97-cv-05106)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 27, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 19, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Lamar Caldwell (a/k/a Mark Benton) filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this Court on June 8, 2007. Although not entirely clear, it appears that
Caldwell would like this Court to order District Judge Stewart Dalzell and Magistrate
Judge M. Faith Angell of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who presided over his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, to assume jurisdiction over Case

-- 1 of 2 --

2
No. 05-04972, which Caldwell filed in the District of New Jersey, and which is closed.
As we have no legal authority to issue such an order, Caldwell has no right, much less a
“clear and indisputable” right, to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
Additionally, upon review of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s docket for
Case No. 98-05102, it appears that Caldwell did not receive a copy of the District Court’s
August 21, 2006 order denying his request to reopen the case. Thus, to the extent that
Caldwell seeks to compel the District Court to rule on the request to reopen, we will deny
the petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the District Court did, in fact, rule on
the request.
Finally, to the extent that Caldwell seeks to appeal from a decision in District of
New Jersey Case No. 05-4972, we note that he has already appealed from the District
Court’s orders in that case, and that we dismissed his appeal on April 19, 2007, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

-- 2 of 2 --