Amin Rashid v. ( 2017 )

BLD-349 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2876
___________
IN RE: AMIN A. RASHID,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 2:08-cr-00493-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 7, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 19, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Amin Rashid, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking the disqualification of United States District Judge Cynthia Rufe. For
the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In 2008, Rashid was charged by indictment with two counts of mail fraud and one
count of aggravated identity theft. In 2009, a superseding indictment charged him with
ten counts of mail fraud, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of
forging or counterfeiting postal money orders. Prior to trial, Rashid filed a motion for
recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and a motion for disqualification pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 455. Both motions were denied by the District Court. Rashid subsequently
filed mandamus petitions seeking to disqualify Judge Rufe. We denied relief. See In re
Rashid, 400 F. App’x 641 (3d Cir. 2010) (non-precedential); In re Rashid, 488 F. App’x
541 (3d Cir. 2012) (non-precedential). Rashid was convicted of nine counts of mail fraud
and eight counts of aggravated identity theft and sentenced to a total of 240 months in
prison. We affirmed Rashid’s convictions on appeal. United States v. Rashid, 593 F.
App’x 132 (3d Cir. 2014) (non-precedential).
In 2015, Rashid filed a motion in District Court to dismiss his “jurisdictionally
defective” indictment pursuant to current Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2).
The District Court denied and dismissed Rashid’s motions and we summarily affirmed.
United States v. Rashid, 654 F. App’x 54 (3d Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Meanwhile,
Rashid filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Rashid
sought to have a 1980 conviction vacated and also sought to have Judge Rufe disqualified
from ruling on his petition. The District Court denied his motion for disqualification and
dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We summarily affirmed,
2
determining, inter alia, that Rashid’s motion for recusal was frivolous. Rashid v. Warden
Philadelphia FDC, 658 F. App’x 636 (3d Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
In 2016, Rashid filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The District Court denied Rashid’s motion to vacate sentence without a hearing. On
August 17, 2017, shortly after his § 2255 motion was denied, Rashid filed a petition for
writ of mandamus, the matter presently before the Court. Rashid again seeks to have
Judge Rufe disqualified. To the extent Rashid raises allegations that are identical to those
we have previously rejected, we will not consider them. See In re City of Philadelphia
Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 718 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine); see
also In re Fisher, 640 F.3d 645, 650 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying the law-of-the-case
doctrine); United States v. Dean, 752 F.2d 535, 541 (11th Cir. 1985).
Rashid’s new claim relates to Judge Rufe’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
on his motion to vacate. Rashid argues that an evidentiary hearing was required because
the record established perjury by a government witness. Rashid further asserts that Judge
Rufe refused to follow the law of this Court when she denied his claim that the
Government failed to establish that he used or caused to be used the United State mail as
opposed to a private courier service.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner
must show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ and no other adequate
means to obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d
3
Cir. 1992). Notably, mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). That is, 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.” Helstoski v. Meanor,
442 U.S. 500, 506 (1979). Rashid has not shown that his complaints regarding the
District Court’s rulings during his § 2255 proceedings cannot be addressed on appeal.
Accordingly, he has not met the standard for mandamus relief.
Finally, Rashid argues that the District Court’s rulings demonstrate that Judge
Rufe is biased. Our mandamus authority includes the power to order a District Court to
recuse in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 455. See In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97, 101 (3d Cir.
1995). However, there is no reason to do so here as Rashid’s arguments regarding Judge
Rufe’s impartiality amount to nothing more than disagreements with her rulings.
“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Rashid also asserts that
Judge Rufe has personal knowledge of the facts of proceeding which are not of record.
The example he points to, however, is based on the record. See Rashid, 593 F. App’x at
133 (explaining that witness Kirbyson was interviewed on November 2, 2007, and again
on July 31, 2008). Accordingly, Rashid has not provided a basis for Judge Rufe’s
disqualification.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
4