Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Platts filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to compel the release of documents and correction of his conviction. The court denied the petitions, finding: (1) Platts' request to compel discovery was moot since the district court disposed of his motion; (2) challenging that determination requires a proper appeal, not a subpoena; and (3) Platts cannot use mandamus as a substitute for the appeals process and must challenge his conviction and sentence through the proper channels of a §2255 motion and appeal, which he has already filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    Platts filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to compel the release of documents and correction of his conviction. The court denied the petitions, finding: (1) Platts' request to compel discovery was moot since the district court disposed of his motion; (2) challenging that determination requires a proper appeal, not a subpoena; and (3) Platts cannot use mandamus as a substitute for the appeals process and must challenge his conviction and sentence through the proper channels of a §2255 motion and appeal, which he has already filed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-3480

    Original Title

    In Re: James C. Platts v., 3rd Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Platts filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to compel the release of documents and correction of his conviction. The court denied the petitions, finding: (1) Platts' request to compel discovery was moot since the district court disposed of his motion; (2) challenging that determination requires a proper appeal, not a subpoena; and (3) Platts cannot use mandamus as a substitute for the appeals process and must challenge his conviction and sentence through the proper channels of a §2255 motion and appeal, which he has already filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Platts filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to compel the release of documents and correction of his conviction. The court denied the petitions, finding: (1) Platts' request to compel discovery was moot since the district court disposed of his motion; (2) challenging that determination requires a proper appeal, not a subpoena; and (3) Platts cannot use mandamus as a substitute for the appeals process and must challenge his conviction and sentence through the proper channels of a §2255 motion and appeal, which he has already filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    DLD-058 and DLD-059

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    Nos. 14-3480 and 14-3888
    ___________
    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 W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:10-cr-00176-001)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    December 11, 2014
    Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: December 19, 2014)
    _________
    OPINION*
    _________

    PER CURIAM
    Pro se petitioner James Platts has filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking the
    issuance of a subpoena to compel the release of documents he classifies as suppressed

    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.

    Brady materials, withheld evidence and case files, and the correction of his judgment
    of conviction. We will deny the petitions.
    In October 2011, Platts pleaded guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud, money
    laundering, and conspiracy. The District Court sentenced him to 46 months of
    imprisonment and imposed, inter alia, an order of restitution in the amount of $80,145.95.
    Although Platts waived his appellate and collateral challenge rights in his plea agreement,
    he appealed. We granted the Governments motion to enforce the appellate waiver and
    summarily affirmed on that basis. See United States v. Platts, C.A. No. 12-2327 (order
    entered Jan. 11, 2013). Since then, Platts has filed a steady stream of post-conviction
    motions in the District Court and mandamus petitions in this Court. As in numerous past
    filings, Platts contends that there was no recorded conviction or guilty plea. He asks
    that this Court assist him with obtaining discovery materials to prove this fact, and,
    ultimately, to amend his judgment of conviction.
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426
    U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must establish that (1) no
    other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the partys right to issuance
    of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the
    circumstances. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal
    quotation marks, alteration omitted).
    With respect to his request for a subpoena, Platts notes that he has filed several
    motions in the District Court seeking to obtain discovery materials. Platts asserts that the
    2

    last such motion was filed in December 2013, but has not yet been considered by the
    District Court. From a review of the District Court docket, however, it appears that an
    order disposing of the motion was entered on September 10, 2014. Accordingly, to the
    extent Platts mandamus petition was filed as an attempt to compel the District Court to
    dispose of his motion, his petition is moot. Moreover, to the extent that Platts seeks to
    challenge that determination, he must do so in a proper appeal and not by seeking a
    subpoena issued to individuals involved in his underlying criminal case.
    Platts attempt to have this Court amend his judgment of conviction fares no
    better. We have admonished Platts on several occasions that he may not use a mandamus
    petition as a substitute for the appeals process. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d
    Cir. 2006). We have also explained that a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 is
    the presumptive means to challenge the validity of a federal conviction or sentence. See
    Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). The District Court recently
    dismissed Platts 2255 motion and he has filed an appeal. See C.A. No. 14-4128. That
    appeal is the proper vehicle for challenging the District Courts disposition of his 2255
    motion, and the many other motions disposed of by the District Court in that proceeding.
    Accordingly, Platts is not entitled to mandamus relief, and we will deny these
    petitions.

    You might also like