Frederick H. Banks v.
670 F. App'x 52
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Frederick H. Banks was indicted (Aug 2015) and later superseded (Jan 2016) on federal charges including interstate stalking, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and false statements; counsel was appointed.
- District Court ordered a psychological competency evaluation in Sept 2015 and treated the time for evaluation and supplemental reports as excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
- A competency hearing occurred Dec 30, 2015; the court allowed supplemental materials and received further memoranda through March 2016.
- The court ordered a second psychiatric/psychological evaluation at the BOP facility in Butner, NC; Banks was transferred to BOP and the evaluation was completed.
- Banks filed a pro se mandamus petition alleging Speedy Trial violations and claiming delays were intended to thwart his exposure of alleged unlawful surveillance; he sought immediate trial and release.
- The Third Circuit found proceedings remained active (status conferences, transfer, evaluation, and a September 29, 2016 competency hearing and October 3, 2016 commitment order) and denied mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel immediate trial | Banks: delay for a second competency exam violated his speedy trial rights and warrants immediate trial/release | Respondents: competency proceedings and related delays were proper; time was excludable and court remained active | Denied — no clear and indisputable right to mandamus; competency proceedings justified delay |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate remedy | Banks: no other adequate means to obtain relief | Respondents: ordinary appellate review and district-court process available | Denied — petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus |
| Whether district court abused discretion in managing docket/ordering additional evaluation | Banks: ordering new evaluation was improper and intended to delay | Respondents: district court acted within its discretion to resolve competency doubts and manage case | Denied — court’s management of competency issue committed to discretion and not shown abusive |
| Whether due process or jurisdiction was violated by delay | Banks: delay deprived him of due process and denied court jurisdiction to proceed fairly | Respondents: proceedings were ongoing and court continued to exercise jurisdiction through hearings and orders | Denied — no due process or jurisdictional violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus standards require no adequate alternative and a clear right)
- Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1976) (mandamus standards articulated)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (case management and docket control committed to district court discretion)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (extreme delays may warrant appellate intervention; standard for relief)