David Moleski v.
695 F. App'x 55
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner David Moleski, a pro se federal prisoner, was convicted in Feb. 2014 of mail and wire fraud and sentenced to 54 months; his direct appeal was affirmed.
- Moleski repeatedly filed mandamus petitions and other motions during and after his criminal proceedings; prior mandamus petitions in this Court were denied.
- In Nov. 2016 Moleski filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the District of New Jersey and then filed numerous ancillary motions (release, dismissal, arrest of prosecutors, judge disqualification).
- Chief Judge Simandle denied Moleski’s judge-disqualification request; the District Court later denied four motions and ordered the Government to answer the § 2255 motion.
- Moleski filed a mandamus petition in this Court seeking an order directing the District Court to grant relief on his § 2255 motion and other requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Title 18 enactment | Moleski: Public Law 80-772 (codifying Title 18) is void due to irregularities, so his conviction is invalid | Government: Statute is valid; prior rulings reject this theory | Court: Argument frivolous; previously rejected and denied again |
| Judge's authority to preside | Moleski: District Judge lacks required credentials | Government/District Court: Judge properly appointed and qualified | Court: Argument frivolous; rejected |
| Delay in ruling on § 2255 motion | Moleski: District Court delay is undue and warrants mandamus | Government: No undue delay; district court acted and has jurisdiction | Court: No extraordinary delay (motion pending ~6 months with other rulings); mandamus inappropriate |
| Appropriateness of mandamus relief | Moleski: Mandamus needed to obtain relief and correct alleged errors | Government: Mandamus is extraordinary and not substitute for appeal; other remedies exist | Court: Mandamus denied — petitioner failed to show no other adequate means or a clear, indisputable right |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is drastic and not a substitute for appeal)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus requires no other adequate means and a clear, indisputable right; undue delay standard)
- United States v. Collins, 510 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.) (referring to statutory-enactment challenges as frivolous)