2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-10-2014

In Re: Steven Schwartz

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-2100

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 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: Steven Schwartz" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 553.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/553
BLD-273 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-2100

___________

IN RE: STEVEN ALLEN SCHWARTZ,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2:03-cr-00035-001)

____________________________________

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

June 5, 2014

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 10, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Federal prisoner Steven Allen Schwartz, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of 

mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania to take certain action in connection with the above-referenced criminal 

case. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
2

I.

In 2005, the District Court sentenced Schwartz to 225 months’ imprisonment and 

ordered that he pay over $1.3 million in restitution following his conviction for a host of 

fraud-related offenses. We affirmed that judgment on direct appeal, see United States v. 

Schwartz, 315 F. App’x 412, 415, 420 (3d Cir. 2009), and the United States Supreme 

Court denied certiorari. Thereafter, Schwartz moved the District Court to vacate, set 

aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court denied

§ 2255 relief, and we subsequently denied Schwartz’s request for a certificate of 

appealability. See C.A. No. 13-2131. He then moved this Court to (1) extend the time to 

file a petition for rehearing in that case, and (2) enter a stay in that case pending our en 

banc decision in United States v. Flores-Mejia, C.A. No. 12-3149. We granted those two

requests in January 2014, and that case remains stayed.

On or about April 16, 2014, Schwartz sent a letter to the District Court, seeking an 

ex parte telephone hearing “to assist in the [c]ourt’s obtaining custody and control of 

[certain] documentary evidence” relating to his criminal case that allegedly was never 

turned over by the Government. Schwartz maintained that “[w]e need to get this 

evidence in the custody and control of the [c]ourt and then sort out the various acts of 

obstruction of justice and Brady violations once the evidence is secured.” On April 22, 

2014, the District Court, construing this latest request “as a new application for 

permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion,” denied that request without 

prejudice to Schwartz’s ability to seek such permission in this Court.
3

Schwartz now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the 

District Court’s April 22, 2014 order “is fraught with legal error,” and that the District 

Court should be directed “to convene a prompt hearing and take all steps necessary to 

take custody and control of [the aforementioned] evidence.”

II.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available in extraordinary 

circumstances only. See 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) the party’s 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 

omitted). Mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, and “a writ of mandamus may not 

issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d 

Cir. 1996).

Schwartz’s mandamus petition effectively argues that the District Court should 

have held the ex parte hearing that he requested instead of treating his request as seeking 

permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. But an appeal from the District 

Court’s April 22, 2014 order provides an adequate means of potentially obtaining relief 

on that argument.1 Furthermore, although Schwartz claims that the alleged evidence at 

 

1

In making this statement, we in no way decide whether that argument would, in fact, 

prevail.
4

issue here “face[s] spoliation,” he does not provide support for that claim. In short, we 

cannot conclude that this case presents extraordinary circumstances warranting 

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we will deny Schwartz’s mandamus petition.