Whether a pro se litigant can obtain mandamus relief when alternative legal remedies exist and the right to extraordinary relief is not clearly established

No question identified. : Case: 25-792, 07/24/2025, DktEntry: 11.1, Page 1 of 1 D. Conn. 11-cv-291 Williams, J. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24" day of July, two thousand twenty-five. Present: Eunice C. Lee, Beth Robinson, Myrna Pérez, Circuit Judges. In Re: Jane Doe, 25-792 Petitioner. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of mandamus. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that “she lacks an adequate alternative means” of obtaining relief and that her right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 233 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 118 (2d Cir. 2013) (concluding that mandamus “is not to be used as a substitute for appeal” (internal quotation marks omitted)). FOR THE COURT: Case: 25-792, 08/13/2025, DktEntry: 14.1, Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13 day of August, two thousand twenty-five. Present: Eunice C. Lee, Beth Robinson, Myrna Pérez, Circuit Judges. In Re: Jane Doe, ORDER Docket No. 25-792 Petitioner. 2 AR 2 2 i 22 2 2 ae ok 2k ek ee ake a ae ak 2c 2c 2k 2k ee ak 2k 2k ak ak Jane Doe, John Doe, by and through his parent Jane Doe, Petitioners, v. East Lyme Board Of Education, Respondent, Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP, Intervenor. Petitioner Jane Doe, filed a motion for reconsideration and the panel that determined the motion has considered the request. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion is denied. For The Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court Supreme Court of the United States Re: Jane Doe, John Doe, by and through his parent Jane Doe Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Kotin Crabtree & Strong, LLP Intervenor Proof of Service |, Jane Doe, do swear or that declare that on this date November 10, 2025, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 | have enclosed the application for extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the Second Circuit summary order on the below named parties or that party’s counsel in the case of Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP. | served them electronically as | have done in the past. The names, company, address, telephone number and e-mail address are as Attorney Eileen M. Hagerty, Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP 3 Newton Executive Park 2223 Washington Street, Suite 101 Newton, MA 02462 617-227-7031 Attorney Rowena Moffett, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, LLP 271 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 rmoffett@bswlaw.com 203-772-2600 Attorney Sheldon D. Myers, Kainen, Escalera and McHale, P.C. 21 Oak Street, Suite 601 Hartford, CT 06108 smyers@kemlaw.com 860-493-0879 | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Sincerely, J asZé LE /s/ Jane Doe P.O. Box 354 Old Lyme, CT 06371