CLD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 18-3644 ___________

IN RE: FRANCISCO LANZO, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00449) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 20, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 23, 2019) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

State prisoner Francisco Lanzo, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus in

connection with a habeas petition he filed in the District Court. For the reasons that

follow, we will deny Lanzo’s mandamus petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In June 2016, Lanzo filed a habeas petition pursuant to

in the

District Court. On November 29, 2018, Lanzo filed this mandamus petition, asking that

we direct the District Court to rule on his habeas petition. Lanzo also put forth arguments

as to why this Court should grant his habeas petition. A week later, on December 7,

2018, the District Court issued a memorandum and order, denying Lanzo’s habeas

petition.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Petitioners must

establish that they have “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that

they have a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers,

(3d Cir. 1996).

Lanzo does not meet the standard for mandamus relief. To the extent that Lanzo

asks us to order the District Court to rule on his habeas petition, he has already received

the relief that he requested. Furthermore, although he believes he was entitled to a

different outcome in the District Court, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d at 378-79.

Accordingly, we will deny Lanzo’s petition.

2