NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-2056 ___________

IN RE: SEAN ROBINSON, 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. No. 1:22-cv-01742) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 on June 22, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 13, 2023) __________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Sean Robinson seeks a writ of mandamus. Because Robinson has

not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his 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 2022, Robinson was sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment for firearms of-

fenses. In November 2022, he filed an “Application and Petition for Extraordinary Rem-

edy in Nature of Great Writ: Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum,” citing

(a)

and arguing that he was entitled to earned time credits under the First Step Act1 and, with

those earned time credits, he should be immediately released from prison. The District

Court construed the filing as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

and

denied it.

In May 2023, Robinson filed a mandamus petition that was transferred to this Court.

In his petition, Robinson maintains that the District Court acted outside the scope of its

jurisdiction when it construed his filing as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

, rather than a petition pursuant to

(a). Robinson also claims that

the District Court improperly judicially amended the petition to include the United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania as a new respondent when it ordered the

Clerk of Court to list the address of the United States Attorney’s Office on the docket sheet

and required that the petition and other documents be served on the United States Attorney.

Robinson requests that this Court declare the District Court’s orders to be void and direct

the District Court to consider his petition under § 1651(a), rather than § 2241.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only extraordinary circum-

stances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Generally,

1 The FSA authorizes eligible prisoners to earn time credits toward their sentence based on their participation in qualified programs and activities. See

(d)(4); Bot- tinelli v. Salazar,

, 1197–98 (9th Cir. 2019) (describing the establishment of a “risk and needs assessment system”). 2 mandamus is a means “to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed

jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.”

(cleaned

up). To obtain the writ, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means exist to

attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisput-

able, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry,

(2010) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

Robinson is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not demonstrated that he

has no other adequate means to attain relief. The District Court’s order was a final order

from which Robinson could have appealed. See

and 2253(a). Manda-

mus is not a substitute for an appeal, and “a writ of mandamus may not issue if a petitioner

can obtain relief by appeal.” Madden v. Myers,

(3d Cir. 1996); see also

Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin,

(3d Cir. 1992) (“Of course, we will not

hold that Fortunato now lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the relief he seeks

simply because he allowed the time for an appeal to expire.”).

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.

3