DLD-036 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2206
___________
IN RE: MICHAEL RINALDI,
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. Crim. Nos. 3-18-cr-00279-002 and 3-18-cr-00280-002)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 19, 2020
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 9, 2020)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Michael Rinaldi has filed a mandamus petition concerning two separate
ongoing criminal cases against him in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.1 Both criminal actions were initiated in August 2018. Alleging
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
In January 2019, the District Court granted Rinaldi’s request to represent himself in
that the District Court has failed to rule on his motions to dismiss that asserted violations
of his right to a speedy trial,2 Rinaldi seeks mandamus relief and dismissal of the
indictments.
M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 3-18-cr-00279
In August 2018, Rinaldi was charged by complaint with conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He was arraigned and indicted, and pre-trial
proceedings ensued. On January 21, 2020, the Government filed a First Superseding
Indictment, charging Rinaldi with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and marijuana (Count I); and with distribution
and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count II). On January 31, 2020,
acknowledging the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, the District Court scheduled trial
on Count I to begin on February 11, 2020 and trial on Count II to begin on March 2,
2020. However, on February 4, 2020, the District Court postponed the trials, finding that,
under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), Rinaldi’s new pre-trial motions tolled the time
remaining under the Speedy Trial Act. On February 22, 2020, Rinaldi filed a motion to
dismiss for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, and the parties filed their briefs.
Rinaldi filed this mandamus petition, dated June 9, 2020, stating that his motion to
dismiss remained pending in the District Court. To demonstrate that mandamus relief is
both of his cases.
2
Rinaldi filed other motions to dismiss, but his mandamus petition is confined to
allegations concerning his right to a speedy trial.
2
appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain
the relief requested, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the
writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Rinaldi cannot make this
showing, because the record shows that the District Court ruled on his motion on June 18,
2020 and denied his motion for reconsideration on July 27, 2020. Moreover, the record
shows that Rinaldi’s jury trial took place in August 2020. To the extent that Rinaldi
seeks redress on a Speedy Trial Act claim, this type of argument may be raised on a
direct criminal appeal. Mandamus must not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See In
re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 3-18-cr-00280
In the second criminal action, Rinaldi was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He was arraigned in October 2018. The
District Court granted Rinaldi’s motions to extend the pretrial motions deadline, and
Rinaldi filed numerous pre-trial motions. The District Court made several rulings on
these motions in December 2019. In January 2020, Rinaldi filed the Speedy Trial motion
to dismiss at issue here. On January 23, 2020, the Government filed a brief in opposition
to the motion. In addition, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the indictment
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Since then, Rinaldi has continued to litigate his pre-trial motions, including an April 2,
2020 motion for pre-trial release, which was denied by a Magistrate Judge. Rinaldi filed
3
an appeal in May 2020. On July 2, 2020, after a hearing, the District Court denied pre-
trial release. Rinaldi then filed another motion to dismiss, which the District Court
denied on August 10, 2020. In September 2020, Rinaldi filed another motion to dismiss
the indictment, referencing the Government’s pending Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the
indictment filed in January 2020. The Government sought and received an extension of
time to file a response, and the matter is pending.
Rinaldi filed this June 2020 mandamus petition during the litigation of his motion
for pre-trial release, when his Speedy Trial motion to dismiss had been pending for about
five months. A writ of mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s “undue
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.
However, the record shows that Rinaldi’s case has been progressing steadily, with no
failure to exercise jurisdiction over the case as a whole. Although the parties’ motions to
dismiss remain pending, we are confident that the District Court will rule on Rinaldi’s
Speedy Trial motion to dismiss without undue delay.
We conclude that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist to justify granting the
drastic remedy of mandamus. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378
(3d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we will deny Rinaldi’s mandamus petition.
4