ALD-006 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3457
___________
IN RE: ROER DAVILA
A/K/A LUIS FERNANDEZ RUIS-HERRERA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2:06-cr-00537-003)
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 10, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 25, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Roer Davila petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel his former
counsel to produce all documents related to his criminal case. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny Davila’s mandamus petition.
I.
In 2010, the District Court convicted Davila of conspiracy to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute a controlled
substance, and sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment. In April 2013, following
an unsuccessful direct appeal, Davila filed a motion to compel his sentencing and
appellate counsel to deliver all documents related to his criminal case. Davila also filed a
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is pending in the District Court.1 Thereafter,
the District Court denied the motion to compel as moot, finding that Davila’s counsel had
already sent him the case file.
Davila maintains that his former counsel has not yet delivered to him the
documents related to his criminal case, and that, as a result, we should issue a writ of
mandamus requiring the District Court to compel his former counsel to do so. Davila has
also filed an appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of his motion to compel.
II.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Davila must
demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2)
[his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate
1
We note that the District Court has appointed counsel to represent Davila in his § 2255
action.
2
under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Davila cannot make such a showing because he has other adequate means to
compel his former counsel to produce the requested documents. In particular, he may
seek review of the District Court’s order denying his motion to compel if his pending
§ 2255 motion is denied. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1998)
(“A writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an
ordinary appeal.”). Thus, mandamus is not appropriate.
Accordingly, because Davila cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition.
3