eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 2013-09

In Re: Maurice Thomas v. , 532 F. App'x 130 ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  • GLD-400                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2295
___________
IN RE: MAURICE THOMAS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 11-cr-00618-003)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 22, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 9, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Maurice Thomas seeks a writ of mandamus to address alleged delays in the
adjudication of his criminal proceedings in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only
in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
    418 F.3d 372
    , 378 (3d
Cir. 2005). A party seeking mandamus must show that he has “no other adequate means
1
Although he is represented by counsel in the District Court, he has filed his mandamus
petition pro se.
to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
    558 U.S. 183
    , 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks
omitted).
In October 2012, the District Court denied Thomas’ counseled motion to dismiss
the charges against him based in part on his right to a speedy trial. To the extent Thomas
intends to challenge that ruling he may not do so via a petition for a writ of mandamus.
A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal and may not be used to circumvent
the final judgment rule.2 In re Baldwin,
    700 F.3d 122
    , 127 (3d Cir. 2102); In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd.,
    353 F.3d 211
    , 219 (3d Cir. 2003). If he is convicted, Thomas may
challenge the District Court’s interlocutory rulings by taking an appeal after entry of a
final judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Graves, — F.3d —, No. 12-2688,
    2013 WL 3112703
     at *1–4 (3d Cir. June 21, 2013) (reviewing Speedy Trial Act claim on direct
appeal); United States v. Willaman,
    437 F.3d 354
    , 357–59 (3d Cir. 2006) (same).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
2
A District Court’s denial of a speedy trial motion is not immediately appealable. United
States v. Culbertson,
    598 F.3d 40
    , 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (“a district court’s order denying
dismissal for an alleged violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not reviewable
on interlocutory appeal”) (citing United States v. MacDonald,
    435 U.S. 850
    , 857 (1978));
cf. United States v. Kuper,
    522 F.3d 302
    , 303–305 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that an order
dismissing an indictment without prejudice pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act is not
immediately appealable and may be appealed if defendant is re-indicted and convicted).
2