In re: Akeem Gumbs v.
697 F. App'x 137
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Akeem R. Gumbs was convicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands of 31 counts (child pornography production/possession and rape of an 8‑year‑old) and sentenced to 300 months; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Gumbs filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit claiming the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant violated his Sixth Amendment right to notice because it did not specify dates for some alleged crimes.
- He alternatively argued the affidavit became constitutionally defective as of his initial appearance before a magistrate judge.
- The District Court denied the § 2255 motion and dismissed the § 1983 action; this Court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the § 1983 appeal as frivolous, reasoning the indictment provided adequate notice.
- Gumbs then filed a mandamus petition (his sixth) seeking an order compelling the District Court to provide “the date of the crime of my initial appearance” so he could know the nature and cause of the accusation.
- The mandamus petition did not allege any basis showing entitlement to relief or compliance with the requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit/voucher violated Sixth Amendment notice by omitting dates for some alleged crimes | Gumbs: affidavit lacked dates and thus deprived him of notice of the charges | Respondent: indictment (unchallenged) and proceedings provided adequate notice; affidavit omissions do not defeat indictment notice | Court: Indictment supplied the required notice; affidavit omission does not warrant relief |
| Whether affidavit became defective at initial appearance such that notice right was violated thereafter | Gumbs: if affidavit was okay at search, it became defective at his magistrate initial appearance | Respondent: no legal basis that an affidavit’s alleged omission becomes a Sixth Amendment defect at initial appearance when indictment exists | Court: No basis for that contention; petition frivolous |
| Whether mandamus relief is available to compel district court to provide the requested date information | Gumbs: seeks mandamus to compel district court to inform him of the date of the crime referenced at initial appearance | Respondent: mandamus requires clear and indisputable right to relief; none shown | Court: Denied — petitioner failed to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief |
| Whether relief is available now given § 2255 was already adjudicated | Gumbs: seeks relief after § 2255 denial | Respondent: further collateral relief requires satisfying second/successive § 2255 requirements | Court: No basis for relief unless petitioner meets § 2255(h) requirements; mandamus petition provides no indication he can |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillette v. Prosper, 858 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 2017) (mandamus available only when petitioner shows clear and indisputable right to relief)
- United States v. Gumbs, [citation="562 F. App'x 110"] (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming Gumbs’s conviction and sentence)