In re: James Platts v. , 573 F. App'x 87 ( 2014 )

CLD-294 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1017
___________
IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Cr. No. 2-07-cr-00021-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 3, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 11, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner James Platts has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an
order compelling the District Court to grant his request for discovery under Rule 6 of the
Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Proceedings. We will deny the petition.
After a trial in the Western District of Pennsylvania, a jury found Platts guilty of
income-tax evasion and nonpayment, and the District Court sentenced him to 60 months’
imprisonment. Platts appealed, and we affirmed the judgment. See United States v.
Platts, 332 F. App’x 725 (3d Cir. 2009). Platts next filed a motion for relief from the
judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court denied that motion, and we refused
to issue a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 10-1438. Platts has since filed two
applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to authorize the District Court to consider another
§ 2255 motion; we denied each of those applications. See C.A. Nos. 12-3870, 13-1120.
Platts has now filed the instant petition for mandamus, contending that he should
be permitted to take discovery in support of his claims that the government withheld
exculpatory evidence in violation of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963). However, Platts raised these Brady claims, and requested the attendant
discovery, in his initial § 2255 action. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion and
the request for discovery. Platts may not use a mandamus action to appeal those
unfavorable rulings — or to seek reconsideration of our subsequent order denying a
certificate of appealability. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996); see
also Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506 (1979) (a court will not issue a writ of
mandamus where the petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling
complained of and all objectives now sought, by direct appeal”). Thus, Platts is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Further, the Court will issue a writ of mandamus only if Platts can show a “clear
and undisputable” right to the discovery he seeks. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). He cannot make that
showing. As an initial matter, because Platts does not have a pending § 2255 action in
the District Court, it is far from clear that he is permitted under Rule 6 to obtain any
discovery whatsoever. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 98 F.3d
2
1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that no discovery is permissible in similar
circumstances). Moreover, the right to discovery in a § 2255 case depends on whether
the defendant can provide “reason to believe that [he] may, if the facts are fully
developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520
U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997) (quotation marks, alteration omitted). Given that Platts seeks
discovery to advance the same Brady claims that he presented (without success) in his
initial § 2255 motion, he cannot establish that he has a clear and undisputable right to
relief. See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We must
dismiss a claim that was presented in a prior motion under § 2255.”).
Accordingly, we will deny Platts’s mandamus petition. We also deny the motion
to compel that Platts filed in this Court.
3