Third Circuit disposition — 083858np-pdf

1
ALD-2 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3858
___________
IN RE: FREDERICK TORRENCE,
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. Civ. No. 07-cv-00331)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 2, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: October 8, 2008
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Frederick M. Torrence, a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling the District Court to order production of discovery materials. For
the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Torrence filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Torrence has

-- 1 of 2 --

The Court denied Torrence’s “Motion for Discovery of Documentary Evidence,” No.1
31, “Motion for Request for Discovery,” No. 40, and “Motion to Compel (Plaintiff’s
Request for Oral Depositions),” No. 65. The pending motion is Torrence’s “Motion for
Order to Compel the Production [of Statements and Testimony],” No. 58, which was
entered May 30, 2008.
2
filed four motions requesting that the District Court order the production of allegedly
discoverable information. The Court denied three such motions, and one remains
pending.1
In his petition, Torrence alleges that the District Court arbitrarily denied his
discovery motions and colluded with Defendants to deny Torrence a fair trial. He alleges
that such actions violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and seeks a writ directing the District Court to order that
Defendants produce the sought-after information.
Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that we have discretion to award only
when a petitioner demonstrates, among other things, a “clear and indisputable” right to
relief. In re Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006). Mandamus lies
only when there is no other remedy, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and must not be used as a mere substitute for appeal. In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2005). Because Torrence’s petition
amounts to an appeal of the District Court’s denial of his discovery motions, mandamus is
not an appropriate remedy and we deny his petition. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v.
Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991).

-- 2 of 2 --