Vaughn Bennett v. , 537 F. App'x 43 ( 2013 )

BLD-421 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-3355
____________
IN RE: VAUGHN BENNETT,
Petitioner
__________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
September 12, 2013
Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 18, 2013)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Vaughn Bennett, an immigration detainee now held in the York County
jail, seeks relief from his state criminal conviction through a mandamus petition. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Bennett, a lawful permanent resident, asserts in his petition that, in 2007, he
pleaded nolo contendere in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas to a state
felony controlled substance violation, see 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(3). He
claims that he was not advised by his counsel that his conviction for a drug trafficking
offense would have deportation consequences, and therefore his plea was not knowing
and voluntary. Bennett seeks relief from his state criminal judgment on the basis that
counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in advising him to plead guilty,
see Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010).
We will deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Our jurisdiction derives from 28
U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
aid of (our) . . . jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of
mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Traditionally, it may be
“used ... only ‘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.’” Id.
(quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 n.2 (1967)).
Bennett does not allege an action or omission by a United States District Court
within this circuit over which we might exercise our authority by way of mandamus. Cf.
United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir. 1981) (focal question for federal
appellate court is whether action of District Court impedes appellate jurisdiction granted
in some other provision of law). He does not allege an action or omission by a federal
officer, employee, or agency over which a United States District Court would have
mandamus jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”)
Accordingly, exercise of our mandamus jurisdiction in his favor would not be proper.
2
In any event, Bennett has other adequate means to obtain relief from his drug
trafficking conviction. Cf. Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992)
(mandamus petitioner must show, among other things, that he has no other adequate
means to obtain the relief desired). Bennett may pursue his constitutional claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis of Padilla through a petition filed in the
Northampton County Court of Common Pleas under the state Post Conviction Relief Act,
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 9541 et seq., and, if his petition is denied, he may appeal to
the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
3