CLD-094 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3754
___________
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.
January 4, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 9, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Frederick Banks has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons
below, we will deny the petition.
In August 2015, Banks was charged in the District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania with one count of interstate stalking. In January 2016, he was charged
by a superseding indictment with aggravated identity theft, making false statements, and
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
wire fraud. The criminal proceedings were delayed while Banks’s competency was
evaluated. Banks filed a prior mandamus petition requesting, inter alia, that we order the
District Court to “get the case moving.” On October 19, 2017, we denied the petition
without prejudice to refiling if the District Court took no further action in the competency
proceedings within sixty days. On December 12, 2017, the District Court determined that
Banks is competent to stand trial. Finding that Banks was a clear and present danger to
the community, the District Court denied his request for bond. In the instant mandamus
petition, Banks requests that we order the District Court to decide the competency issue.
He also requests that we order him released.
The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck
v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ,
Banks must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to
obtain the desired relief and must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief
sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for
an appeal. See In Re Brisco, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).
With respect to Banks’s request for release, there is the alternative remedy of
appealing the denial of his request for bond. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Moreover, he has
not shown a clear and indisputable right to such relief. His request that we order the
District Court to determine the competency issue is moot, as the District Court recently
made its determination on that issue. See In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir.
2
1981) (“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during the pendency of
the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief.”).
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for mandamus.
3