Frederick Banks v.
699 F. App'x 134
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se petitioner Frederick Banks alleges the Government surveilled his communications under FISA and filed a “motion to disclose FISA surveillance.”
- Banks contends the District Court Clerk refused to docket his motion because Banks is subject to a preexisting filing injunction entered by Judge Cathy Bissoon.
- Banks asserts the filing injunction was entered in retaliation for his efforts to expose Judge Bissoon’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy against him.
- Banks seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to docket his FISA-related motion and to perform her duties.
- The Third Circuit evaluates mandamus as an extraordinary remedy and reviews whether the district court acted beyond or failed to exercise its jurisdiction and whether Banks’s right to relief is clear and indisputable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus to challenge the filing injunction | Banks argues the injunction is unlawful and seeks mandamus to review it | The government/Respondent asserts mandamus is inappropriate where an appeal is available | Denied: mandamus unavailable because Banks could have sought review by direct appeal (mandamus not a substitute for appeal) |
| Whether the district court must docket Banks’s FISA disclosure motion despite the injunction | Banks contends the court must docket and consider his motion to disclose alleged FISA surveillance | The district court applied the injunction, treating filings as miscellaneous and requiring leave before filing | Denied: the motion falls within the injunction’s scope, so court did not unlawfully refuse to exercise jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court engaged in unlawful or retaliatory conduct warranting mandamus | Banks alleges the injunction was retaliatory and the judge breached her oath | Respondent maintains the injunction lawfully restricts filings and was properly applied | Denied: Banks failed to show a clear and indisputable right to relief or unlawful exercise of jurisdiction |
| In forma pauperis procedural relief request | Banks requested relief from filing a prison account statement for this mandamus petition | Respondent argued compliance with local rules generally required | Granted limited relief: IFP application deemed complete for this petition only; future IFPs must comply with court rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy)
- In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (mandamus confines inferior courts to lawful jurisdiction or compels action)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (if an appeal lies mandamus will not lie)
- Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2005) (declining mandamus review when appeal was available and injunction procedures not previously challenged)
- Richardson Greenshields Secs., Inc., 825 F.2d 647 (2d Cir. 1987) (mandamus standard requires showing unlawful exercise or failure to exercise jurisdiction)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus requires clear and indisputable right to the writ)