In re James E. Murphy

OPINION

James Murphy petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to release him. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.

In July 2009, Murphy was convicted of drug trafficking charges. 1 On May 24, 2010, Muiphy filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition by order entered May 27th, and Murphy filed a notice of appeal which was docketed at No. 10-2696. On June 9th, Murphy filed his mandamus petition in which he requested that we review the District Court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition.

A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Determining whether an extraordinary circumstance exists requires a two-part inquiry. First, it must be established that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief. Second, a petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Kensington Intern. Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). Because Murphy can challenge the denial of his § 2241 petition on appeal, he has other adequate means of relief and is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition. Murphy’s motion to stay his criminal proceedings is denied.