In Re: Jeffrey Schmutzler v.
688 F. App'x 143
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey Schmutzler pleaded guilty in Aug. 2014 in the M.D. Pa. to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment plus 10 years supervised release.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Schmutzler, 602 F. App’x 871.
- Schmutzler filed a § 2255 motion alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance for failing to challenge federal jurisdiction; the district court denied relief and this Court refused a COA.
- He later filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Massachusetts raising similar jurisdictional claims; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Schmutzler sought leave to file successive § 2255 motions raising the same jurisdictional challenges; those applications were denied.
- He then filed this mandamus petition asking the Third Circuit to order the district court to quash the indictment and vacate his sentence on the ground that Pennsylvania had exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may be used to quash the indictment and vacate conviction | Schmutzler: federal prosecution was improper because Pennsylvania had exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction | Respondent: mandamus is extraordinary; Schmutzler had other remedies and has already litigated these claims | Denied — mandamus inappropriate; claims could have been or were raised on appeal and in § 2255 proceedings |
| Whether Schmutzler may evade § 2255 gatekeeping by mandamus | Schmutzler: seeks collateral relief via mandamus rather than successive § 2255 | Respondent: § 2255 is presumptive remedy and § 2244/2255(h) gatekeeping applies; mandamus cannot circumvent it | Denied — must comply with successive § 2255 procedures; mandamus not a substitute |
| Whether prior § 2255 and § 2241 remedies were adequate | Schmutzler: previous filings insufficient to vindicate jurisdictional claims | Respondent: prior § 2255 was available and denied; § 2241 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Denied — other adequate means existed; mandamus unavailable |
| Appointment of counsel and bail request | Schmutzler moved for counsel and bail in connection with mandamus petition | Respondent: motions ancillary to an improper mandamus | Motions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394 (extraordinary nature of mandamus)
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (mandamus standards)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (requirements for mandamus relief)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (mandamus not a substitute for appeal)
- Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (direct appeal sufficiency bars mandamus)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (§ 2255 is presumptive remedy for federal prisoners)
- Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172 (mandamus cannot evade § 2255 gatekeeping)
- United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188 (mandamus not substitute for statutory postconviction process)
- United States v. Schmutzler, 602 F. App’x 871 (Third Circuit affirming conviction)