Filed: Jan. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: BLD-063 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3461 _ IN RE: RICHARD ADEBAYO, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-15-cr-00550-001) District Court Judge: Madeline C. Arleo _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 27, 2018 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 9, 2019) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Pet
Summary: BLD-063 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3461 _ IN RE: RICHARD ADEBAYO, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-15-cr-00550-001) District Court Judge: Madeline C. Arleo _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 27, 2018 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 9, 2019) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Peti..
More
BLD-063 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3461
___________
IN RE: RICHARD ADEBAYO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-15-cr-00550-001)
District Court Judge: Madeline C. Arleo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 27, 2018
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 9, 2019)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Richard Adebayo has filed a mandamus petition concerning the ongoing
criminal case against him in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The District Court set forth the pertinent history in its Continuance Order entered
on December 17, 2018, so we present only a brief summary. In October 2015, Adebayo
and a co-defendant, Amos Peter Agbajaife, were indicted on charges relating to wire
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
fraud and aggravated identity theft. Adebayo’s arraignment was in November 2015. In
2016, he was released from pretrial detention under certain conditions of release, but he
fled the District of New Jersey. In June 2017, Adebayo was arrested in California and
was transferred back to the District of New Jersey, and he was detained pending trial. In
October 2017, the District Court granted his motion to proceed pro se; standby counsel
was appointed. Adebayo filed a number of pretrial motions. In December 2017, at a
hearing on the motions, the District Court set a trial date of March 5, 2018, a date later
rescheduled to May 15, 2018.
In April 2018, over Adebayo’s objection, the District Court granted the
Government’s motion for a continuance of the Speedy Trial Act from April 6, 2018 to
May 15, 2018. On May 14, 2018, Adebayo was arraigned on a superseding indictment
concerning his co-defendant Agbajaife, again on multiple charges relating to wire fraud
and aggravated identity theft. Adebayo was also charged with a count of failure to
appear. The Government filed another motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial
Act. Adebayo filed several motions, including a motion for bond, and a motion to
dismiss the indictments and for release from custody.
Adebayo then filed this mandamus petition. In support of his petition, Adebayo
states that his right to a speedy trial has been violated, and that pre-trial motions remain
pending in the District Court. As relief, Adebayo asks this Court to compel the District
Court to set a trial date.
constitute binding precedent. 2
We will deny Adebayo’s mandamus petition, because no “extraordinary
circumstances” exist to justify granting this drastic remedy. See In re Diet Drugs Prods.
Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that mandamus relief is
appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain
the relief requested, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the
writ. Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Adebayo cannot make this
showing, because the District Court docket now reflects that he already has received the
relief sought. With standby counsel present on Adebayo’s behalf, the District Court held
a status conference on November 30, 2018, during which a trial date was set for January
29, 2019. 1 To the extent that Adebayo seeks redress on his claim of a Speedy Trial Act
violation, this type of argument may be raised on a direct criminal appeal. Mandamus
must not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd.,
353 F.3d
211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
1
In addition, a response date for motions was set for December 20, 2018, and a motions
hearing was scheduled for January 8, 2019.
3