*AMENDED ALD-190 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1658
___________
IN RE: JEFFREY SCHMUTZLER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1-13-cr-00065-001)
District Court Judge: William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 13, 2017
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 1, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Jeffrey Schmutzler has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this Court quash an indictment, which he claims was improperly
obtained, and vacate his conviction and sentence. We will deny the 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 August 2014, Schmutzler pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 108 months, to be
followed by 10 years of supervised release. This Court affirmed. United States v.
Schmutzler, 602 F. App’x 871 (3d Cir. 2015). Schmutzler subsequently filed a motion to
vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a pretrial motion challenging
federal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion and this Court declined
to issue a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 15-2462 (order entered Dec. 21,
2015). Thereafter, Schmutzler filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Massachusetts,
where he was incarcerated, raising claims similar to those that were raised in his § 2255
petition. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Schmutzler v.
Grondolsky, D. Mass. No. 1-16-cv-10077 (order entered September 16, 2016).
Schmutzler subsequently filed two applications for leave to file a second § 2255 motion,
presenting the same jurisdictional challenges as were previously raised. We denied both
applications.
Schmutzler now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. Schmutzler seeks an
order from this Court directing the District Court to quash his indictment and vacate his
sentence. Schmutzler argues that Pennsylvania had either exclusive or concurrent
2
jurisdiction over his crimes, which therefore deprived federal authorities of jurisdiction to
prosecute and convict him.1
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. United States Dist.
Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d
Cir. 2005). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must establish 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 under the circumstances.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks,
alteration omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996). 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). Schmutzler raises claims that could have been presented in prior appeals; thus,
he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Further, a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for
a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Okereke v.
United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). As noted, Schmutzler previously filed a
§ 2255 motion, which the District Court denied. If Schmutzler wishes to collaterally
challenge his conviction or sentence by filing a second or successive § 2255 motion, he
1
Schmutzler has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion
requesting bail.
3
must once again comply with the gatekeeping requirements prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §
2244 and § 2255(h). He may not use a mandamus petition to evade these requirements.
See Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Baptiste,
223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, we will deny
Schmutzler’s mandamus petition. Schmutzler’s motion for the appointment of counsel
and his motion requesting bail are denied.
4