in Re: Darren Keys v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 594 3d Cir. 1992 citing In re Jackson County, 834 F.2d 150,…

DLD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3534
___________
IN RE: DARREN KEYS,
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. No. 2-07-cv-04050)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2010
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(filed: March 3, 2010 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Darren Keys, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus. In his petition, he asks this Court to order the District Court to clarify its
order assessing fees. For the reasons stated below, we will deny the petition.
In 2007, Keys initiated a civil action and applied for in forma pauperis status,
which the District Court granted. The District Court informed Keys that pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, he must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee in installments. Based
on the financial information that Keys submitted, the District Court assessed an initial

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court’s docket reflects that Keys has filed numerous other motions1
regarding the status of his account and the collection of filing fees. The District Court
has denied each of Keys’s motions.
2
partial filing fee. In addition, the District Court instructed the Warden or the appropriate
official to deduct from Keys’s account, each time the balance in his inmate trust fund
exceeds $10, an amount no greater than 20 percent of the money credited to his account
during the preceding month and forward that amount to the Clerk of the Court.
In March 2008, after considering an unopposed motion to dismiss, the District
Court dismissed Keys’s complaint. Keys appealed, and this Court dismissed his action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it lacked legal merit. See C.A. 08-1883.
While the appeal was pending, partial filing fees continued to be deducted from Keys’s
prisoner account and noted on the District Court’s docket.
In August 2009, Keys filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Keys alleged that the District Court repeatedly denied his
motions to clarify its assessment order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), specifically as to
how the Warden should comply with the fee assessment order. Keys seeks mandamus1
relief from this Court to compel the District Court to clarify its assessment order.
Regardless of whether a prisoner seeks a writ of mandamus or a writ of
prohibition, the appropriate inquiry is whether such an extraordinary remedy is available.
See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990); United States v.
Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 594 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing In re Jackson County, 834 F.2d 150,
151 (8th Cir. 1987)). Before a writ will issue, the petitioner must establish that the writ is

-- 2 of 3 --

Based on a cursory review of the docket, some notations appear atypical or irregular.2
3
not being used as a substitute for the regular appeals process, that there is no alternative
remedy or other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and that the right to the relief
sought is “clear and indisputable.” See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S.
394, 403 (1976); see also In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005).
Keys has not shown that a writ should issue. He seeks to have the District Court’s
order regarding the fee assessment procedure clarified, yet the order is clear. To the
extent that Keys really seeks review of how the order is being enforced, mandamus action
by this Court is not appropriate at this time. We cannot say, based on our review of the
District Court’s docket, that Keys has shown a “clear and indisputable” right to such
relief. The District Court is in a much better position than we are to examine whether its2
assessment order is being properly executed by the Warden or other prison official.
Accordingly, rather than seeking mandamus relief in this Court, Keys should make an
appropriate and specific request to the District Court, and if necessary, utilize the regular
appeals process. Keys may also consider utilizing the prison’s internal grievance
procedures, if he has not already done so. The petition for a writ is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --