In re Michael Evan KEELING, Petitioner, 518 F. App'x 77

OPINION PER CURIAM. Michael Evan Keeling petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we order the District Court to “entertain” his filings in three different matters. He complains that the District Court refused to do so when it dismissed his eases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).

Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “used ... only 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.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 867, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (citations omitted); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). By his phrasing, Keeling tries to suggest that the District Court refused to consider filings that were properly before it.

However, that is simply not the case. A review of the relevant court records reveals that the District Court did, in fact, entertain his filings. Although Keeling disagrees with the result in those cases, his disagreement is a matter for appeal, not for mandamus relief. We will deny his petition.