in Re: Artemio Jimenez v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 3d Cir. 1992 citing Kerr v. United States…

CPS-184 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1910
________________
IN RE: ARTEMIO JIMENEZ,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 00-cv-01848)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
March 31, 2005
Before: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed June 23, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Artemio Jimenez asks that we issue a writ of mandamus ordering the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to reopen his case, which was
closed in 2003, pursuant to that Court’s Order. We will deny the petition.
In his petition, Jimenez asks this Court to order the District Court to reopen his

-- 1 of 2 --

2
case at Civil No. 00-cv-01848 so that he can show that he exhausted all available
administrative remedies in his prisoner civil rights case. Mandamus is an appropriate
remedy only in the most extraordinary of situations. In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 528
(3d Cir. 1994). To justify such a remedy, a petitioner must show that she has (i) no other
adequate means of obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a “clear and indisputable” right to
issuance of the writ. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992)
(citing Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)). It is well
established that mandamus is not an alternative to an appeal. See In re Chambers
Development Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (“Given its drastic nature, a writ of
mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary
appeal.”).
Here, Jimenez had the opportunity to make his arguments in the District Court, and
again had the opportunity on appeal to argue that he had exhausted all available remedies.
The fact that Jimenez was unsuccessful on appeal is not grounds for mandamus relief.
We will deny his petition.

-- 2 of 2 --