Filed: Apr. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2020
Summary: ALD-076 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-3896 _ IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 December 30, 2019 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 9, 2020) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Frederick Banks, proceeding pro se, has
Summary: ALD-076 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-3896 _ IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 December 30, 2019 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 9, 2020) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Frederick Banks, proceeding pro se, has ..
More
ALD-076 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3896
___________
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)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
December 30, 2019
Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 9, 2020)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Frederick Banks, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
asking this Court to present evidence to the United States House of Representatives
purporting to support the issuance of articles of impeachment against certain District
Court and Magistrate Judges. We will deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Banks was convicted on November 7, 2019 after a jury trial in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of wire fraud and aggravated
identity theft. He has yet to be sentenced. Banks has filed numerous pro se motions in
his criminal case despite being represented by counsel and numerous mandamus petitions
related thereto.
Banks has attached to his present mandamus petition proposed articles of
impeachment. He alleges that the District Judge presiding over his criminal case
improperly ordered him to undergo mental health evaluations, committed him to a mental
health hospital, bribed an attorney, and denied bond. He states that the District Judge has
held him beyond his maximum possible sentence and in unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. Banks also alleges that a Magistrate Judge conspired with the District
Judge to keep him confined beyond his maximum possible sentence. He contends that
another Magistrate Judge allowed an FBI agent to “pull his gun” on a witness in another
criminal case of his, apparently before she was a Magistrate Judge. Banks asks us to
compel the United States House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, and
the Speaker of the House to review his articles of impeachment.
“Traditionally, the writ of mandamus has been used ‘to confine an inferior court to
a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority
when it is its duty to do so.’” In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc.,
148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and its use
is discouraged.’”
Id. A petitioner must establish that there are no other adequate means
to attain the desired relief and that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable.
Id.
2
Banks has established neither. He challenges decisions in his criminal case and
makes unsupported allegations. He has made no showing that he has a clear and
indisputable right to a writ or that the writ he seeks is available. In addition, allegations
of judicial misconduct by a federal judge may be brought under the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act, In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct,
575 F.3d 279, 290 (3d Cir. 2009),
which includes provisions addressing the removal of Magistrate Judges and misconduct
that might be impeachable. See 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(3)(B), (b)(2). There are other
adequate means to attain the desired relief.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3