BLD-341                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ____________

                                      No. 15-2978
                                      ____________


                            IN RE: WAYNE PETTAWAY,
                                             Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                          On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
                       ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                September 17, 2015
               Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: October 2, 2015)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Wayne Pettaway, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus

claiming that he has been “unlawfully incarcerated without the proper documentation

such [as] a commi[t]ment order or a sentencing order.” He seeks immediate release from

state prison and “redress” for his unlawful confinement. We will deny the petition.


*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to

“issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and agreeable to the

usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked

only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

, 402

(1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show both a

clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that he has no other adequate means to obtain

the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 

, 89 (3d Cir. 1992).

       Pettaway is not entitled to this extraordinary relief. Pettaway is seeking an order

from the District Court compelling state action with request to a state prisoner. A federal

court . . . may not use a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a

jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 

, 278 (3d Cir.

1981). Moreover, Pettaway has other adequate means to challenge his incarceration—

either in state court or through a properly filed petition for habeas corpus, as appropriate.1

       For these reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.




1
 We, of course, do not make any comment on the viability of any other motion or
petition for relief, including a habeas petition, that Pettaway may choose to file.
                                              2