Frederick Banks v.

ALD-153 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3295
___________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-15-cr-00168-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 4, 2019
Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 2, 2019)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Frederick Banks is currently awaiting trial in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on charges of interstate stalking, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2261(a)(2), aggravated identity theft, § 1028A(a)(1), making false statements,
§ 1001(a)(3), and wire fraud, § 1343.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
On October 8, 2018, Banks filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.
First, Banks asks us to remove the FBI and United States Attorney’s Office from his case
due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from his role in having “the FBI and US
Department of Justice [] placed under a Congressional Investigation.” Second, Banks
asks us to direct the District Judge to rule on his pending motion for release on bond
pending trial. He also moves to recuse the District Judge on the ground that he has failed
to schedule a hearing on that motion in a timely manner.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only extraordinary
circumstances. 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).
We will deny in part and dismiss in part Banks’s petition. With respect to his
request to remove the FBI and United States Attorney’s Office from his case, Banks
already requested this relief from the District Court, which denied the request, (Order,
ECF No. 636), and mandamus may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005). As for Banks’s concern
that the District Judge has delayed in ruling on his motions for release on bond, the
docket report reflects that the District Court disposed of these motions by order entered
March 27, 2019. (Order, ECF No. 876.) Thus, to the extent that Banks asks us to
provide relief that he has already obtained, we will dismiss the petition as moot, see
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). We will also
2
deny his related request for recusal. Banks has not otherwise demonstrated that he has a
clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. 1
Accordingly, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the mandamus petition.
1
Banks also asserts that the District Court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction” over his
criminal case, and asks us to direct the District Court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction. Banks has not provided sufficient factual support or legal argument for us to
address this request.
3