In re: Frederick Banks v.
699 F. App'x 132
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Frederick Banks was indicted in Aug. 2015 for interstate stalking; a Jan. 2016 superseding indictment added aggravated identity theft, false statements, and wire fraud charges.
- Criminal proceedings have been delayed pending a competency evaluation of Banks.
- Banks filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking multiple forms of relief: compel the U.S. Attorney to investigate, remove defense counsel, prosecutors, and the district judge from the case and from office, release him from custody, and award $855,000,000 in damages.
- District Court denied a motion to remove defense counsel without prejudice pending resolution of competency; a motion for release on bond is pending before the District Court.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether mandamus was appropriate given alternative remedies and whether delay equated to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Order U.S. Attorney to investigate | Banks requests a court order compelling a criminal investigation | Government discretion allows selective enforcement; no individual right to compel prosecution | Denied — no clear, indisputable right to force investigation |
| Disqualify/remove judge and attorneys | Delay shows bias/misconduct warranting removal from case and public office | No proof of disqualifying partiality; statutory and case-law standards not met | Denied — allegations insufficient to establish right to removal |
| Release from custody / bond | Delay and competency proceedings warrant immediate release | Release/bond is addressed through motions in District Court; alternative remedy exists | Denied — alternative remedy exists; bond motion pending in District Court |
| Monetary damages for alleged wrongful confinement | Seeks $855,000,000 for harms from prosecution/detention | Damages must await favorable termination of conviction claims and procedural prerequisites | Denied — plaintiff must pursue civil action and meet prerequisites (e.g., Heck) |
| Court order to speed case / relief for delay | Requests mandamus to make District Court move the case | Court docket management is within District Court discretion; mandamus only for extreme delay | Denied without prejudice — may refile if no action on competency within 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (standards for issuance of mandamus)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (no federal right to compel prosecution)
- United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973) (government has enforcement selectivity)
- United States v. Whitaker, 268 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2001) (balancing right to counsel choice with judicial administration)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (docket management is within district court discretion)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus may be warranted where delay equals failure to exercise jurisdiction)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (prerequisite for damages for wrongful conviction or confinement)