In Re: Mark Green v.
664 F. App'x 255
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2009 Green was convicted of access-device fraud and identity theft, sentenced to 139 months, and ordered to forfeit a Mercedes-Benz and $9,000.
- Green’s direct appeal failed. Subsequent Rule 41(g) (return of property) litigation in district court was denied; the Government conceded error on appeal and this Court remanded for further proceedings.
- On June 12, 2015 Green filed a § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence (later amended); briefing was complete by November 29, 2015.
- Green repeatedly moved the district court for final rulings and for release on bail pending resolution of his § 2255 motion; the district court denied bail and later denied as moot his request to rule on the return-of-property motion after resolving that matter.
- Green petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his § 2255 motion and his motion for return of property; he also sought leave to proceed IFP and relief from filing a prisoner account statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court should issue mandamus compelling the district court to rule on Green’s § 2255 motion within 30 days | Green: district court’s delay is undue; mandamus warranted to force prompt ruling | District court: has exercised jurisdiction (denied bail), will rule; no extraordinary usurpation of power | Denied without prejudice; court confident district court will rule without undue delay |
| Whether mandamus should compel a ruling on Green’s motion for return of property | Green: seeks final ruling on returned-property motion | Respondent: district court has now ruled on the property motion, making mandamus unnecessary | Denied as moot to the extent the property motion was at issue |
| Whether Green may proceed IFP and be excused from filing a prisoner account statement | Green: requests IFP and relief from account-statement requirement | Respondent: no opposition noted in opinion | IFP granted and relief from filing the prisoner account statement granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic remedy appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (undue delay may equate to a failure to exercise jurisdiction; standards for mandamus and IFP considerations)
- United States v. Green, [citation="516 F. App'x 113"] (3d Cir. 2013) (Green’s direct appeal decision)
- United States v. Green, [citation="581 F. App'x 123"] (3d Cir. 2014) (remand on Government’s concession re: Rule 41(g) issues)