in Re: Jacquelyn B. N’jai v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 10-1062. N’Jai acknowledges that the appeal raises several…

DLD-139 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1061
___________
IN RE: JACQUELYN B. N’JAI,
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-01506)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 4, 2010
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(filed: March 9, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Jacquelyn N’Jai seeks a writ of mandamus requesting “investigations” and
“review” of an employment discrimination action that she unsuccessfully pursued in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. For the following
reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d

-- 1 of 3 --

We note that after Judge Fischer granted the last remaining defendants’ motion to1
dismiss, N’Jai filed a notice of appeal. That appeal is pending before this Court. See
N’Jai v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 10-1062. N’Jai acknowledges that the appeal raises
several of the claims that are contained in the mandamus petition. See Mandamus
Petition, 25.
2
525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). The petitioner must have no other adequate means to obtain the
relief desired and the petitioner must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ.
See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). In addition,
mandamus is not a 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).
N’Jai baldly asserts that the judge in the employment discrimination case, the
Honorable Nora Barry Fischer, and “some attorney defendants, along with the [Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission] and [the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission] conspired to misuse the District Court, thereby . . . [den]ying . . . Plaintiff’s
civil right to seek redress in a court of law and recover damages, . . . an impartial due
process, and equal protection of the law.” This alleged conspiracy, however, is primarily
based on unfavorable rulings by the District Court, rather than on any judicial misconduct
or fraud on the court. Because N’Jai’s challenges to the adverse rulings can be raised on
appeal, mandamus relief is not appropriate. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d1
Cir. 2006). To the extent that N’Jai claims that Judge Fischer and the defendants acted in
concert to interfere with her lawsuit, we conclude that her unsubstantiated allegations do

-- 2 of 3 --

not support a conspiracy claim warranting relief through mandamus or otherwise. Cf.
Capogrosso v. The Supreme Court of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding
that judges’ hallway conversation and subsequent adverse ruling did not “give rise to an
inference of conspiratorial conduct.”).
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
3

-- 3 of 3 --