Travis Gower v.
Travis Gower v.
Opinion
ALD-047 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 25-3207 ___________
IN RE: TRAVIS GOWER, 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. Civ. No. 4:25-cv-02090) ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 11, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 23, 2025) _________
OPINION* _________
PER CURIAM
Travis Gower has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to
intervene in his civil action filed in the District Court. We will deny the petition.
On November 5, 2025, Gower filed a civil complaint in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill &
Bar, its employees, the Bloomsburg Police Department, the Colombia County District
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Attorney’s Office, and the Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney, wherein he
alleged that he was arrested at Applebee’s in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania without probable
cause and in violation of his constitutional rights. On November 12, 2025, Gower filed
the instant petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we: (1) command the “lower
courts” to cease illegal acts; (2) issue a cease-and-desist order against Court of Common
Pleas Judge Daniel J. Clifford; (3) stay his upcoming preliminary hearing in the Court of
Common Pleas; (4) consolidate this case with the appeal docketed at C.A. No. 25-2631;
(5) recuse Judge Clifford and “bias panels” (sic); (6) certify Gower as a RICO
investigator; (7) refer the matter to the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of
Investigation for conspiracy and other crimes; (8) appoint counsel and/or a guardian ad
litem for his son; (9) schedule an immediate in-person hearing; and (10) issue a ruling
immediately. Meanwhile in the District Court, the matter was referred to Chief
Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom for a Report and Recommendation, which he issued on
November 19, 2025, granting Gower’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
screening his complaint, and recommending the complaint be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37(1971).
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary
cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005). To
obtain relief, a petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to obtain relief,
that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the writ is appropriate under
the circumstances. See Hollingsworth v. Perry,
558 U.S. 183, 190(2010) (per curiam).
Gower has not made that showing here.
2 To the extent Gower asks us to intervene in his state court cases, we lack the
mandamus authority to issue orders directing Judge Clifford to recuse himself or to cease
any further action.1 See In re Grand Jury Procs.,
654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981); In re
Wolenski,
324 F.2d 309, 309(3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam). To the extent Gower seeks
other relief, including a referral of this matter to federal agencies for criminal
investigation, Gower’s unsupported allegations do not support mandamus relief, and
there is no clear and indisputable right to require the Government to initiate criminal
proceedings. See, e.g., Jafree v. Barber,
689 F.2d 640, 643(7th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal of a complaint styled as a mandamus petition seeking an order
directing the FBI to investigate crimes because “[i]nitiation of criminal investigation by
the F.B.I. is clearly a discretionary act”); cf. Inmates of Attica Corr. Facility v.
Rockefeller,
477 F.2d 375, 379, 383(2d Cir. 1973) (affirming dismissal of a complaint in
mandamus to compel the United States Attorney to investigate, arrest, and prosecute state
officials for committing federal offenses). For similar reasons, Gower has not made the
necessary showing to warrant mandamus relief for his requested certification as a RICO
investigator. To the extent Gower seeks counsel in the District Court or state court, he
can file motions there. To the extent he seeks other relief from us, it is denied.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
1 Judge Clifford is a named defendant in a separate case, Civ. No. 2:25-cv-02262.
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished