In re: Gennaro Rauso v.
677 F. App'x 99
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Gennaro Rauso pleaded guilty in 2010 to multiple federal offenses and was sentenced to 160 months; his plea agreement contained an appellate/collateral-attack waiver.
- The Third Circuit affirmed Rauso’s conviction on direct appeal, enforcing the appellate waiver. United States v. Rauso, 548 F. App’x 36 (3d Cir. 2013).
- Rauso filed a § 2255 motion to vacate; the District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss on July 30, 2014, concluding Rauso had waived collateral challenges.
- Rauso’s post-judgment motions (including a Rule 59(e) motion and a motion to supplement his § 2255 filings) were denied on November 19, 2014, and the District Court ordered Rauso to stop filing papers in that proceeding.
- Rauso later sought to file additional papers (June 2015, May 2016, Sept. 2016); the District Court returned/denied those filings on September 14, 2016. Rauso petitioned this Court for mandamus/prohibition to vacate the District Court orders and compel the Clerk to file his motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court’s dismissal and denial orders are void and warrant mandamus | Rauso argued the orders were void on various grounds and should be vacated | District Court’s orders were appealable and supported by the plea-waiver; not void | Denied — Rauso had an adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether mandamus may compel the Clerk to file Rauso’s later submissions | Rauso sought an order compelling filing of motions submitted in 2015–2016 | The filings were barred by prior injunction/orders and were attempts to relitigate § 2255 issues; appeal was available | Denied — mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and an appeal was available |
| Whether the filing injunction applied to the contested documents | Rauso contended the injunction should not bar those documents | Court treated injunction as limited to § 2255 proceedings and interpreted it as applicable to Rauso’s attempted filings | Court did not need to decide applicability; would decline mandamus in any event |
| Whether extraordinary relief (mandamus/prohibition) should be granted in discretion | Rauso urged issuance because other remedies were inadequate | Court emphasized mandamus is drastic and discretionary; petitioner must lack alternative remedies and show clear right | Denied in discretion — even if criteria arguable, relief withheld because filings sought to re-litigate § 2255 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for mandamus and prohibition; drastic remedy rarely issued)
- In re School Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310 (3d Cir. 1990) (same standard applied to prohibition)
- In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1998) (mandamus not a substitute for appeal; discretionary relief)
- United States v. Rauso, 548 F. App’x 36 (3d Cir. 2013) (panel enforced plea agreement waiver on direct appeal)