In Re: Frederick Banks v.
670 F. App'x 54
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Pro se petitioner Frederick H. Banks faces federal criminal charges including interstate stalking, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and making false statements.
- Appointed counsel moved for a competency inquiry; the District Court ordered a BOP mental-health evaluation at Butner in April 2016 and denied Banks’s request for release on bond pending trial.
- The District Court also denied Banks’s pro se motions without prejudice to refiling by appointed counsel.
- Banks alleges he was not served with the April 2016 order and only received actual notice on July 1, 2016; counsel of record was, however, served.
- Banks seeks a writ of mandamus to (1) reinstate his right to appeal the April 2016 order and (2) compel appointed counsel to refile his motions; he also challenges delay in competency proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to reinstate an appeal and reverse denial of bond | Banks contends lack of service prevented timely appeal and seeks mandamus to restore appeal and reverse bond denial | District Court’s processes are subject to review by ordinary appellate procedures; counsel was served and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal | Denied — mandamus inappropriate; appeal is the ordinary remedy and no clear, indisputable right shown |
| Whether mandamus should compel appointed counsel to refile pro se motions | Banks says counsel refused to refile motions and mandamus should force filing | Court notes pro se motions were denied without prejudice to refiling by counsel; counsel represents client and filing decisions fall within counsel’s role | Denied — no extraordinary relief; not shown that counsel’s refusal warrants mandamus |
| Whether delay in competency proceedings warrants mandamus intervention | Banks alleges an 11‑month delay that justifies court intervention via mandamus | Record shows active engagement by District Judge and parties; delay does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances | Denied — delay alone not sufficient to invoke mandamus given ongoing proceedings |
| Whether petitioner has no other adequate means and a clear and indisputable right to the writ | Banks argues lack of service deprived him of appellate rights, leaving mandamus as only remedy | Governing standards require absence of other adequate means and a clear right; ordinary appellate route remains available | Denied — petitioner failed to meet mandamus standards; discretionary relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic, narrowly available remedy)
- Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus standards require no other adequate means and a clear right)
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1976) (framework for mandamus relief)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus relief is discretionary even when prerequisites are met)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (delay in proceedings does not automatically justify mandamus)
- In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (mandamus can confine inferior courts to lawful jurisdiction)