Third Circuit disposition — 124452np-pdf

ECO-020 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-4452
_____________
In Re: PA CHILD CARE, LLC;
WESTERN PA CHILD CARE, LLC;
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES,
Petitioners
_____________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Directed to the U. S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Nos. 3-09-cv-00286, 3-09-cv-00291, 3-09-cv-00357,
3-09-cv-00630, 3-09-cv-02535 and 3-10-cv-00797)
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
December 19, 2012
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 18, 2013)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a),
directing the District Court to set aside its discovery order entered on October 31, 2012,
and ordering certain discovery to be produced, namely expunged juvenile records.
Further, they seek an order directing the District Court to permit their Carey v. Piphus,
435 U.S. 247 (1977), defense.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remed[y]. . . . reserved for really
extraordinary causes.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947). It is well
established that mandamus may only issue where (1) petitioners have “no other adequate
means” to attain the relief they seek; (2) their right to mandamus is “clear and
indisputable;” and (3) exercising discretion, we are satisfied that the mandamus “is
appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006)
(quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, (2004)).
Petitioners have failed to satisfy these requirements. Petitioners have another
appropriate avenue for relief—direct appeal after the entry of a final judgment.
Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus may not
be “used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81.
Petitioners are seeking just such a substitute here.1
For the foregoing reasons, we decline to employ one of “the most potent weapons
in the judicial arsenal,” id. at 380, to address the parties’ contentions, and will deny the
petition.
1 We express no opinion as to the seriousness of the deprivation of a defense and the
denial of discovery deemed important to petitioners’ case. We note only that direct appeal
of such issues is the proper course.

-- 2 of 2 --