Filed: Apr. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: CLD-126 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-1263 _ IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. March 7, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 5, 2019) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Frederick Banks is currentl
Summary: CLD-126 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-1263 _ IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. March 7, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 5, 2019) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Frederick Banks is currently..
More
CLD-126 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-1263
___________
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.
March 7, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 5, 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.
On January 21, 2019, Banks filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Banks states that in December 2018, he filed a motion in the District Court seeking
reimbursement for expenses incurred in the criminal action, including postage, envelopes,
paper, and pens. The District Court denied his request. Banks now asks us to order the
District Judge to “perform his clear legal duty and enter an order granting [his] motion
for reimbursement.”
We will deny Banks’s petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only
extraordinary circumstances, and may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005). Because the District
Court’s order was reviewable on appeal, mandamus relief is not appropriate. 1 See In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd.,
353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie,
mandamus will not.”).
1
We express no opinion on whether, should Banks seek appellate review, his appeal
would be timely or otherwise within our jurisdiction, or whether the appeal would have
merit.
2