
    In re Curtis BRINSON, Petitioner.
    No. 12-4325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Jan. 4, 2013.
    Opinion filed: Feb. 12, 2013.
    Curtis Brinson, Graterford, PA, pro se.
    Thomas W. Dolgenos, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, Robert M. Falin, Esq., Norris-town, PA, for District Attorney Philadelphia, Attorney General Pennsylvania and Donald Vaughn.
    Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Timothy J. Savage.
    Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Brinson, a state court prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which seeks “enforcement of the parts of U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam’s Order dated October 1, 2008, which the Commonwealth (Respondents) concedes they did not appeal to the Third Circuit.” Brin-son argues that because the Order granted an absolute writ of habeas corpus, the Commonwealth could not retry him “without new charging documents, a new preliminary hearing, and a new arraignment.”

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not warranted here. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). In Brinson v. Vaughn, 339 Fed.Appx. 171 (3d Cir.2009), we reversed the District Court’s October 1, 2008 order. Thus, the District Court’s order never went into effect. Further, we have denied Brinson’s previous petition for a writ of mandamus based on similar arguments. See In re: Curtis Brinson, No. 09-2978 (3d Cir. July 10, 2009).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Brin-son’s motion for appointment of counsel is similarly denied.  