United States District Court, D. Delaware
THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff,
JUDGE EDWARD R. BECKER, et al. Defendants. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner,
JOHN SEBASTIAN, Respondent. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff,
THE STATE OF DELAWARE and GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, Defendants.
Introduction. Plaintiff/petitioner Thomas E. Noble
("Noble") filed identical petitions for writ of
mandamus in the three above-captioned cases. (Civ. No.
03-906-SLR at D.I. 13; Civ. No. 16-406-SLR at D.I. 29; Civ.
No. 16-407-SLR at D.I. 20) On January 23, 2017, the court
denied the petitions. (Civ. No. 03-906-SLR at D.I. 15; Civ.
No. 16-406-SLR at D.I. 31; Civ. No. 16-407-SLR at D.I. 22)
Noble moves for reconsideration of the January 23, 2017
orders. (Civ. No. 03-906-SLR at D.I. 18; Civ. No. 16-406-SLR
at D.I. 39, D.I. 40; Civ. No. 16-407-SLR at D.I. 25) He has
also filed amended petitions for writ of mandamus. (Civ. No.
03-906-SLR at D.I. 20; Civ. No. 16-406-SLR at D.I. 42; Civ.
No. 16-407-SLR at D.I. 26)
Motion for Reconsideration. The court will deny the motions
for reconsideration. The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence."
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A
proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of three
grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669
(3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
Noble moves for reconsideration on the grounds that Noble
"pre-disqualified" the undersigned after he filed
notices of conflicts of interests, he seeks solely
declaratory relief, the State did not oppose his petitions,
and mandamus relief is appropriate. The court has reviewed
Noble's petitions for writ of mandamus and considered his
position in the instant motion. In doing so, the court finds
that Noble has failed to demonstrate grounds for
reconsideration and, therefore, his motions will be denied.
Amended Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. The court will deny
the amended petitions for writ of mandamus. On February 2,
2017, Nobles filed amended petitions for writ of mandamus
"once as a matter of course." The main difference
between the original petitions and the amended petitions is
that the amended petitions seek declaratory relief, while the
original petitions did not contain prayers for relief, and
appeared to seek to preclude enforcement of a 2004 order that
enjoins Noble from filing pro se civil rights complaints in
this court without prior court approval. The amended
petitions seek declaratory relief that: (1) the 2004 order
enjoining Noble from filing pro se civil rights complaints
without prior approval of the court is unconstitutional on
its face; (2) the undersigned should not have been assigned
to his cases after Noble's
"pre-disqualification;" (3) an impartial judge
should have promptly issued a writ of habeas corpus in
response to Noble's hybrid petition-complaint; (4) the
State of Delaware wrongfully prosecuted Noble; (5) the
State's "dealing in child pornography" statute
is unconstitutional on many levels and it is applied in an
unconstitutional manner; (6) the State of Delaware committed
crimes and other illicit acts to oppress and falsely convict
Noble; and (7) what Noble did was "in fact no crime
recognizable by constitutional law" and to grant Noble
leave to file a related lawsuit for damages. (D.I. 20,
declaratory relief requested)
Under the All Writs Act, a federal court has jurisdiction to
issue a writ of mandamus only "in aid of its
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Federal courts have
jurisdiction "in the nature of mandamus to compel an
officer or employee of the United States or any agency
thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1361."The writ of mandamus is a drastic
remedy that a court should grant only in extraordinary
circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial
usurpation of power." Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v.
Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
mandamus relief Noble seeks is not available to him. First,
Noble could have obtained the relief sought through the
normal appeal process. See In re Kensington
Int'lLtd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003); see
also In re Noble, 663 F.App'x 188 (3d Cir. 2016)
(unpublished). The court observes that, at present, Noble has
sought such relief in Civ. No. 16-406-SLR. Second, with
regard to relief directed towards actions taken by State
Courts, this court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ
of mandamus. See Davis v. Noble, F.App'x, 2017
WL 838639, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) (unpublished).
Finally, Noble, as a serial litigator, is well aware of the
steps he must take to file a civil rights complaint in this
review of the petition, Noble has failed to support his
burden to demonstrate that this court engaged in an unlawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or failed to exercise
its authority when it was its duty to do so. See e.g.,
Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158-89 (2d Cir. 2005).
Mandamus relief is not warranted and, therefore, the amended
petitions will be denied.
Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the:
(1) motions for reconsideration (Civ. No. 03-906-SLR at D.I.
18; Civ. No. 16-406-SLR at D.I. 39, D.I. 40; Civ. No.
16-407-SLR at D.I. 25); and (2) the amended petitions for
writ of mandamus (Civ. No. 03-906-SLR at D.I. 20; Civ. No.
16-406-SLR at D.I. 42; Civ. No. 16-407-SLR at D.I. 26). A
separate order shall issue.
To be eligible for mandamus relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a petitioner must satisfy three
conditions. First, the party seeking issuance of a writ must
demonstrate that he has "no other adequate means to
attain the relief he desires." Cheney v. United
States Dist. Court,542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citation
omitted). Next, he must carry the burden of showing that
"his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable." Id. at 381 (citations omitted).
Finally, "the issuing ...