Mark Picozzi v. ( 2012 )

DLD-002 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3444
___________
IN RE: MARK PICOZZI,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to 1-12-cv-03063)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 4, 2012
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 12, 2012)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Mark Picozzi, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of
mandamus compelling the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
reopen a civil case Picozzi initiated that was administratively terminated. Alternatively,
Picozzi petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling the Superior Court of New Jersey
for Atlantic County to dismiss his ongoing criminal prosecution. Picozzi also filed a
motion seeking a temporary restraining order against the Superior Court of New Jersey.
We will deny the petition and motion without prejudice.
Picozzi is detained in the Atlantic County Justice Facility while his criminal
prosecution is ongoing. In May 2012, Picozzi filed a pleading in the District Court.
Although this pleading was docketed as a complaint, the relief requested was more
similar to relief available through a petition for a writ of mandamus. Picozzi requested
that the District Court intervene in the state court criminal proceeding and dismiss the
case or, alternatively, grant him a hearing in the District Court and allow him to present
evidence of his innocence. Picozzi sought relief from the District Court because,
principally, his requests for a speedy trial from the Superior Court of New Jersey were
not granted and, to a lesser extent, the prosecutor, public defender, and Superior Court
prevented him from establishing his innocence.
On July 5, 2012, the District Court administratively terminated Picozzi’s case
because it determined that Picozzi, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, did not file a
duly certified six-month prison account statement and affidavit of poverty as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The District Court’s termination
order provided that, if Picozzi pre-paid the $350 filing fee or filed a valid in forma
pauperis application within thirty days of the entry of the order, the case may be
reopened. Picozzi filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on July 17, 2012,
within the thirty-day period set forth in the District Court’s order. The District Court has
not acted in Picozzi’s case since the entry of its order on July 5, 2012.
2
On August 31, 2012, Picozzi petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus.
Picozzi’s petition states that he complied with the District Court’s order and submitted a
timely application to proceed in forma pauperis but the District Court has not reopened
his case. 1 Picozzi’s petition requests that we compel the District Court to grant him a
hearing or dismiss his state criminal prosecution. On September 17, 2012, Picozzi filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order against the Superior Court of New Jersey due to
alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in extraordinary circumstances only. In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 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, 102 F.3d 74, 79
(3d Cir. 1996). Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary. In re Fine
Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 2005). Consequently, there is no “clear
and indisputable” right to have the District Court handle a case in a certain manner. See
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). However, mandamus may
be warranted when a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
1
Picozzi’s petition to this Court and other filings with the District Court allege that he
filed a valid informa pauperis application with the District Court attached to his May
2012 pleading. However, that application’s prisoner account statement was not duly
certified by the appropriate prison official, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform
3
In this case, Picozzi’s in forma pauperis application has been pending in the
District Court for less than three months; this period of time is not an undue delay and
does not warrant our intervention. See id. (noting that a delay of approximately eight
months did not require mandamus). Consequently, we deny Picozzi’s petition for a writ
of mandamus compelling the District Court to grant Picozzi a hearing and express our
confidence that the District Court will expediently address Picozzi’s in forma pauperis
application.
In regard to Picozzi’s petition that we compel the Superior Court of New Jersey to
dismiss the criminal proceedings against him, he has not shown that he has a clear and
indisputable right to that relief. See id. Mandamus typically may be “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 Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d at
378 (internal quotation marks omitted). State courts are not inferior courts of this Court,
and, except in limited circumstances, federal courts do not have the power to compel state
courts to act in a particular way. See Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive
Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) (noting that state courts and federal courts comprise
separate legal systems); In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 654 F.2d 268, 278-79 (3d Cir.
1981) (explaining that generally federal courts may only issue directives to state courts to
protect their jurisdiction or effectuate judgments). Therefore, we deny Picozzi’s petition
Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
4
for a writ of mandamus compelling the Superior Court of New Jersey to dismiss the
criminal proceedings against him.
Similarly, we deny Picozzi’s motion for a temporary restraining order against the
Superior Court of New Jersey. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “[a] court of the
United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court” except
where one of the three exceptions apply: (1) the injunction is “expressly authorized by
Act of Congress”; (2) an injunction is “necessary in aid of [the federal court’s]
jurisdiction; or (3) an injunction is necessary “to protect or effectuate [the federal court’s]
judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Picozzi does not argue that any of these exceptions apply
and his allegations do not support a showing that an exception is applicable; accordingly,
we lack the authority to grant the temporary restraining order that he requests and his
motion is denied.
For the reasons we have given we deny Picozzi’s petition for a writ of mandamus
and deny his motion for a temporary restraining order.
5