Michael Pendleton v.
678 F. App'x 64
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael J. Pendleton, pro se, was convicted in Pennsylvania of second-degree murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life plus 10–20 years (concurrent) in 1999.
- Pendleton filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in 2002; the District Court denied relief and a COA in 2003, and this Court denied a COA in 2004.
- A request for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition was denied by this Court in 2010.
- Pendleton filed a § 2241 petition in December 2016 asserting actual-innocence grounds; the District Court dismissed it in January 2017 without prejudice and told him to seek authorization under § 2244(b)(3) to file a successive § 2254 petition.
- Pendleton moved to alter or amend the District Court’s judgment under Rule 59(e), filed a mandamus petition to this Court seeking immediate release, and sought bail and an immediate hearing.
- The Court denied the mandamus petition as inappropriate because an appeal provides an adequate remedy; bail and hearing motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel District Court to grant relief and release Pendleton based on alleged actual innocence | Pendleton argued the District Court wrongly dismissed his § 2241 and that mandamus should order correct disposition and immediate release | Respondent (via Court) argued mandamus is extraordinary and not appropriate where ordinary appellate review is available | Denied — mandamus improper because Pendleton has adequate alternative remedy (appeal) and did not show clear, indisputable right |
| Whether Pendleton lacked alternative adequate remedies such that mandamus was warranted | Pendleton contended no adequate alternative to obtain relief quickly | Court found appeal to this Court from the District Court’s dismissal provides an adequate remedy | Held: alternative remedy exists (appeal), so mandamus unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus is extraordinary and not a substitute for appeal)
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (two-part test for mandamus: no alternative remedy and clear right to relief)