*AMENDED ALD-190 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1658

___________

IN RE: JEFFREY SCHMUTZLER,

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. Civ. No. 1-13-cr-00065-001)

District Court Judge: William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

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

April 13, 2017

Before: MCKEE, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 1, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Jeffrey Schmutzler has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

seeking to have this Court quash an indictment, which he claims was improperly 

obtained, and vacate his conviction and sentence. We will deny the petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

In August 2014, Schmutzler pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 108 months, to be 

followed by 10 years of supervised release. This Court affirmed. United States v. 

Schmutzler, 602 F. App’x 871 (3d Cir. 2015). Schmutzler subsequently filed a motion to 

vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel 

provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a pretrial motion challenging 

federal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion and this Court declined 

to issue a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 15-2462 (order entered Dec. 21, 

2015). Thereafter, Schmutzler filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Massachusetts, 

where he was incarcerated, raising claims similar to those that were raised in his § 2255 

petition. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Schmutzler v. 

Grondolsky, D. Mass. No. 1-16-cv-10077 (order entered September 16, 2016). 

Schmutzler subsequently filed two applications for leave to file a second § 2255 motion, 

presenting the same jurisdictional challenges as were previously raised. We denied both 

applications. 

Schmutzler now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. Schmutzler seeks an 

order from this Court directing the District Court to quash his indictment and vacate his 

sentence. Schmutzler argues that Pennsylvania had either exclusive or concurrent 
3

jurisdiction over his crimes, which therefore deprived federal authorities of jurisdiction to 

prosecute and convict him.1

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. United States Dist. 

Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d 

Cir. 2005). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must establish that “(1) no other 

adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) [his] right to issuance of the writ is 

clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” 

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks, 

alteration omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Madden v. 

Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996). That is, a court will not issue a writ of mandamus 

where the petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling complained of and 

all objectives now sought, by direct appeal.” Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506 

(1979). Schmutzler raises claims that could have been presented in prior appeals; thus, 

he is not entitled to mandamus relief. 

Further, a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for 

a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Okereke v. 

United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). As noted, Schmutzler previously filed a 

§ 2255 motion, which the District Court denied. If Schmutzler wishes to collaterally

challenge his conviction or sentence by filing a second or successive § 2255 motion, he 

 

1 Schmutzler has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion 

requesting bail. 
4

must once again comply with the gatekeeping requirements prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 

2244 and § 2255(h). He may not use a mandamus petition to evade these requirements. 

See Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Baptiste, 

223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, we will deny 

Schmutzler’s mandamus petition. Schmutzler’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

and his motion requesting bail are denied.