IN RE: Thomas E. Noble v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 . Second, he must…

DLD-155 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1496
___________
IN RE: Thomas E. Noble,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civ. Nos. 09-cv-05857; 04-cv-05997; and others)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 18, 2010
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 23, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Thomas E. Noble indicates that he has filed complaints in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, docketed at 04-cv-05997 and 09-
cv-05857, “and Many Other Civ. Nos. at the E.D. Pa. and at Other U.S. District Courts
Under the 3 Circuit’s Jurisdiction.” Noble has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,rd
asking this Court to transfer “records of E.D. Pa. No. 09-5857 and ALL related past
cases, to either the Supreme Court of the United States, or to the Judicial Panel of Multi-

-- 1 of 3 --

We further note that this court would not have jurisdiction to “transfer” cases that1
have already been closed.
District Litigation, for REASSIGNMENT to an impartial district court . . . .” For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must satisfy three conditions. First, he
must “have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Second, he must show that his
right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id. Third, the reviewing court must conclude
that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Id.
Noble’s mandamus petition is essentially a request to change venue. The express
terms in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provide that a federal district court may transfer civil actions
from one federal district court to another. While the Supreme Court has found that a
federal court of appeals may effect a transfer by direct order where “unusual
circumstances” require “extraordinary action,” see Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 382
U.S. 362, 364-65 (1966), no such unusual circumstances appear based on Noble’s
petition. We note that Noble’s case pending at 09-cv-05857 has been assigned to a judge1
outside of the Eastern District. See E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-05857, docket no. 4 (certified
copy of order designating and assigning The Honorable Mary Little Cooper of the District
of New Jersey). To the extent that Noble may seek to disqualify Judge Cooper based on

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Noble is attempting to have this Court enforce an order allegedly2
entered by Judge Weiner in 2005, we deny his request. It appears that Noble is referring
to an order entered at E.D. Civ. No. 04-cv-05997 at docket no. 6. However, that
document does not order the Clerk to transfer his case out of the circuit; instead, it simply
reflects Judge Weiner’s understanding that the “matter is currently in the process of being
transferred to another Circuit.” It appears that instead, the matter was assigned to Judge
Cooper. Noble did not appeal from the dismissal of that case, and he may not use
mandamus as a substitute for an appeal. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212-13 (3d Cir.
2006). In any event, the order entered in 04-cv-05997 would have no application to other
cases filed by Noble.
Noble’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Noble’s motion to dismiss the3
Veterans Administration as a party to the appeal is denied as moot. Noble’s motion to
strike his motion for emergency preliminary relief is denied as stated--the motion will
remain on the docket--however, the motion is granted to the extent that no action will be
taken on the motion. 3
alleged bias and prejudice, the conclusory allegations of his petition do not establish that
a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the District
Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 220 (3d Cir. 2003).2
Accordingly, we determine that Noble has not met his burden of showing that he
has no other adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks or that his right to issuance of
the writ is “clear and indisputable.” As a result, we shall deny his mandamus petition.3

-- 3 of 3 --