2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-14-2013

In re: Allie Speight

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1004

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In re: Allie Speight" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1381.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1381
DLD-085 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1004

___________

In re: ALLIE SPEIGHT, 

a/k/a Allie Speights 

a/k/a A. H. Speights,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Criminal No. 2:10-cr-00641-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 10, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 14, 2013)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

In April 2012, petitioner Speight pleaded guilty to numerous offenses in the 

District Court. He has not yet been sentenced. Speight seeks an “emergency writ of 

mandamus” to 1) set aside or modify an August 21, 2012 order denying bail pending 

sentencing and 2) force his custodian to treat his serious medical condition. We will deny 

the petition.
2

Mandamus is “an appropriate remedy in extraordinary circumstances only. . . . A 

petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate 

means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and 

indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). A mandamus 

proceeding is not a substitute for a direct appeal. See Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 

506 (1979). 

With regard to Speight’s first request, the August order to which he refers was 

denied without prejudice pursuant to its reassertion by counsel. Speight may obtain 

“reconsideration” of it, in a sense, by having counsel file a motion for bail pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3143(a) or (b), as appropriate.1 Should he be displeased with the outcome, an 

appeal may be available to him under Fed. R. App. P. 9(b). The availability of other 

avenues of relief counsels against granting the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

With regard to his second request, the denial of medical care is a serious matter. 

However, the place to address it is not via a petition for mandamus filed in a federal 

appellate court. Should Speight believe that a serious medical condition is not being 

appropriately treated, he should pursue his concerns through the internal administrative 

remedies of the facility.

2

 

1

Throughout his submissions, Speight confuses 18 U.S.C. § 3143, which governs his 

situation, with 18 U.S.C. § 3142, which governs bail for those who have not yet been 

convicted of their offenses. We note that we considered, and denied, an interlocutory 

appeal from the denial of pretrial release. See C.A. No. 11-2877 (order entered Oct. 4, 

2011).

2 According to the FDC Philadelphia Admission & Orientation Inmate Handbook, the 
3

Thus, finding neither extraordinary circumstances nor an indisputable right, we 

will deny this petition for mandamus.

 

facility contains an Administrative Remedy procedure that Speight may utilize if he is 

concerned about a lack of medical treatment.