Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03493/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Blade
Petitioner
United States
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3493

___________

Ronnie Blade, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

United States of America, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2008

Filed: February 26, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Ronnie Blade (Blade) has moved in this court for leave to file

a petition for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). For the following reasons, we

construe Blade’s pleading as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and we grant

mandamus relief. 

Blade is currently serving five life sentences after a jury found him guilty of

five crack cocaine charges. This court affirmed his conviction and sentences. See

United States v. Blade, 336 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Appellate Case: 07-3493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2008 Entry ID: 3406325
-2-

While his direct appeal was pending, Blade filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

which he sought to amend several times, and which was dismissed by the district court

as being prematurely filed. This court summarily affirmed the dismissal but amended

the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Blade v. United States, (No. 03-1050) (8th

Cir. Jan. 24, 2003).

In June 2004, after this court issued its mandate in Blade’s direct appeal, Blade

filed a document titled “Movant’s Pro Se . . . fourth amendment to his original

section 2255 motion” where he set forth the history of his case and alleged, inter alia,

ineffective assistance of counsel. The government argued for dismissal on the ground

that Blade’s motion was successive and he had not obtained permission from this

court to file a successive motion. The district court summarily denied Blade’s motion

“for the reasons set forth in the Government’s response.” The court also denied

Blade’s motion for a COA, causing Blade to apply to this court for a COA and for

authorization to file a successive habeas motion. This court issued an order in April

2005 granting a COA and concluding Blade’s motion was not a successive motion.

See Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018, 1023 (8th Cir. 2003) (“A claim raised in a

prior petition that was dismissed as unripe is not barred by [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(b).”).

We denied the application to file a successive motion as unnecessary and directed this

court’s clerk to forward Blade’s filing to the district court to be treated as Blade’s first

section 2255 motion.

As Blade explains in the pleading he has now filed in this court, the pleading

returned to the district court pursuant to our April 2005 order has never been docketed

as a section 2255 motion in the district court. Further, Blade repeatedly filed various

self-styled motions explaining this error to the district court and seeking to have his

original section 2255 claims addressed, but the district court summarily denied each

of Blade’s motions. It is clear to us that the relief Blade seeks in this court is to have

the district court comply with our April 2005 order--a type of relief best effected

through a mandamus petition. See In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255-

Appellate Case: 07-3493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2008 Entry ID: 3406325
-3-

56 (1895) (explaining, if a district court mistakes or misconstrues a decree of this court,

and does not give full effect to the mandate, a district court’s action may be controlled,

either upon a new appeal or by a writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of this

court). We thus consider Blade’s pleading as a petition for mandamus relief.

The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist.

Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). Traditionally, courts “have used

the writ only 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.”

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal

citation omitted). We find under these circumstances Blade has shown a “clear and

undisputable” right to the writ, no other adequate means of relief is available, and a

writ is appropriate. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81 (describing three requirements

for the issuance of a writ of mandamus); In re United States, 397 F.3d 274, 282 (5th

Cir. 2005) (stating a mandamus is appropriate only when the “court has exceeded its

jurisdiction or has declined to exercise it, or when the trial court has so clearly and

indisputably abused its discretion as to compel prompt intervention by the appellate

court”); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 78 (3d Cir. 1996) (declaring mandamus is the

appropriate remedy when the district court ignores the appellate court’s mandate).

We grant a writ of mandamus, directing the district court: (1) to instruct Blade

to file, giving Blade a reasonable amount of time to do so, a single, new amended

section 2255 motion, relating back to his June 2004 filing, setting forth the claims

Blade believes entitle him to section 2255 relief, and (2) to address the merits of such

claims. Blade’s pending motions are denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3493 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2008 Entry ID: 3406325