ALD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 18-1014
____________
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 Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
February 7, 2018
Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 4, 2018)
____________
OPINION *
____________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner 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,
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
§ 1001(a)(3), and wire fraud, § 1343. In an order entered December 12, 2017, the
District Court determined, inter alia, that Banks is competent to stand trial, but
incompetent to represent himself. Banks appealed 1, and filed a petition for writ of
mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order directing the District Court to
allow him to represent himself at trial, and to appoint standby counsel. For the following
reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.
Traditionally, use of the writ is appropriate “to confine an inferior court to a lawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its
duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). Banks alleges
that the District Court did not lawfully exercise its jurisdiction in denying his right to
self-representation. However, the remedy of mandamus is “a drastic one, to be invoked
only in extraordinary situations.” United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 593 (3d Cir.
1992). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, Banks must show both a clear and
indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief
desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). Because Banks
has raised the same issues in his appeal which is pending separately before the Court, he
has not shown that he has no other alternative means of relief.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
1
In his notice of appeal, Banks specifically states that he is appealing the December 12th
order to the extent it denied him the right of self-representation. See C.A. No. 17-3822.
2