In Re: Frederick Banks v.
674 F. App'x 238
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Frederick H. Banks, a pro se federal defendant, sought a writ of mandamus relating to ongoing criminal charges including interstate stalking, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and false statements.
- After defense counsel moved, the district court initiated a competency inquiry and ordered a mental-health evaluation at the BOP facility in Butner; Banks previously filed a mandamus petition to this Court challenging delay and alleging unlawful surveillance, which was denied in Nov. 2016.
- Banks’s current mandamus petition alleged misconduct by the Eastern District of North Carolina Clerk, FCI-Butner trust-fund staff, withholding of treatment notes, adoption of a bogus mental evaluation by the district judge, and conspiracies involving the FBI and CIA to keep him confined; he sought funds returned and release from custody.
- The Court considered whether it had mandamus authority under the All Writs Act to act in aid of appellate jurisdiction and whether independent subject-matter jurisdiction existed to supervise the district court.
- The Court treated mandamus as an extraordinary remedy requiring lack of alternative relief and a clear, indisputable right, and reviewed whether transfer to a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 was appropriate.
- The Court denied Banks’s petition, concluding it would not exercise mandamus power over the district court matters and declined to transfer the matter to a district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may issue mandamus to supervise district-court actions (Clerk and judge) | Banks sought mandamus to compel Clerk and district court officials to act and remedy alleged misconduct | No independent basis for this Court to exercise supervisory mandamus over district-court actions by way of § 1651 | Denied — no independent jurisdiction to supervise those district-court actions via this Court's mandamus power |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to address alleged wrongful detention and alleged conspiracies (speedy trial, surveillance, FBI/CIA) | Banks argued delays and commitment were unlawful and part of a conspiracy; sought release | Mandamus is extraordinary; petitioner must lack other remedies and show a clear, indisputable right; many allegations concern ongoing district-court proceedings | Denied — petitioner did not satisfy the extraordinary-mandamus standard and Court declined to exercise discretion to grant relief |
| Whether the petition should be transferred to a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 | Banks alleged federal officers/agencies committed actionable omissions that a district court could address | Transfer possible but discretionary; mandamus principles still apply | Denied — Court declined to transfer the matter to a district court |
| Whether mandamus can substitute for appeal to correct alleged procedural errors in criminal case | Banks sought immediate relief via mandamus instead of appeal or other remedies | Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal; appellate remedies and district-court processes remain appropriate | Denied — mandamus not appropriate substitute; Court refused to use mandamus in place of normal appellate or district-court remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir.) (mandamus requires independent jurisdiction that issuance of the writ might assist)
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is extraordinary and drastic relief)
- In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus prerequisites: lack of other means and clear, indisputable right)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus is discretionary and not a substitute for appellate review)