CLD-116                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                        No. 18-3317
                                        ___________

                           IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                     On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
          United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                  (Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-15-cr-00168-001)
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 February 28, 2019
            Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges


                             (Opinion filed: August 1, 2019)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Frederick Banks is currently awaiting trial in the United States District Court for

the Western District of Pennsylvania on charges of interstate stalking, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2261(a)(2), aggravated identity theft, § 1028A(a)(1), making false statements,

§ 1001(a)(3), and wire fraud, § 1343.



*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       On October 18, 2018, Banks filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.

Banks states that he previously filed in this Court a “renewed motion to dismiss” his

underlying criminal case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but that this Court

improperly converted it into a “motion for bail” and denied it. See C.A. No. 17-3822

(order entered Apr. 20, 2018). He also claims that he filed a similar motion in the District

Court, but that the District Court improperly denied it without prejudice. Banks now asks

us to “compel[] the 17-3822 panel and the District Court . . . to adjudicate the renewed

motion to dismiss, and dismiss the underlying criminal case and superseding indictment.”

       A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only extraordinary

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A

petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired

relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v.

Myers, 

, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

       We will deny Banks’s petition. First, we may not use the writ to direct a prior

panel of this Court to reopen a closed appeal; an appellant may request review of a

judgment entered by a court of appeals by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the

Supreme Court in accordance with its rules. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1254. Similarly, to the

extent that Banks asks this Court to compel the District Court to issue a different ruling

on one of his motions in the underlying criminal case, he must seek redress through the




1
  In any event, we have reviewed Banks’s notice of appeal in C.A. No. 17-3822 and note
that it does not reference a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
                                              2
Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure. Mandamus cannot be used as a

substitute for appeal. In re Diet 

–79.

      Because Banks has not demonstrated that he has a clear and indisputable right to

issuance of the writ, we will deny his mandamus petition.




                                            3