GLD-021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3438

___________

IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2-04-cr-00176-001)

____________________________________

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

October 20, 2011

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 8, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Frederick Banks (a.k.a. River SilverElk, see ECF No. 650), a federal 

prisoner, filed a petition for mandamus in which he requested that we compel: 1) the 

prison officials at FDC Philadelphia to send Banks’s personal and legal mail, and 2) 

District Judge Conti to “hold a prompt hearing or make a ruling” on the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion Banks filed on January 17, 2011. 

We will only issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) in 

“extraordinary circumstances.” See Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 
2

(3d Cir. 1996). A petitioner seeking mandamus must show that (1) no other adequate 

means exist to attain the desired relief, (2) his right to issuance of the writ is clear and 

indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances of his case. Cheney 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004); In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc., 459 

F.3d 383, 399 (3d Cir. 2006). Even when the petitioner makes a strong showing, an 

appellate court “exercises discretion whether to issue a writ of mandamus.” United States 

v. Farnsworth, 456 F.3d 394, 400 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Cheney). 

With regard to Banks’s request for expediency with regard to his § 2255 motion, 

we take judicial notice that his District Court docket reflects significant activity since its 

filing, including numerous motions and orders, the last of which was entered in late July. 

While mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a 

failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), no 

such abdication is evident here. We are confident that the District Court will swiftly rule 

on Banks’s § 2255 motion without our intervention. 

With regard to Banks’s request that we compel officials at FDC Philadelphia to 

send his mail, we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief he seeks. The All Writs Act allows 

the issuance of writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651(a). But we are still bound by the extent of our “subject-matter jurisdiction over 

the case or controversy.” United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2221 (2009). As 

Banks asks, essentially, for an injunction compelling “an officer or employee of the 
3

United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to” him, original jurisdiction 

is vested in the District Court, not with us. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361.1 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for mandamus.

 

1 We have instructed Banks on a previous occasion that suits compelling an officer of the 

United States to perform a duty cannot be originated via mandamus petition in an 

appellate court. See In re: Frederick Banks, No. 11-1970 (order entered on May 12, 

2011). In that case, we further observed that neither a civil-rights action nor a § 1361 

petition was litigation ““of the type that Congress did not intend to curtail” by enacting 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Madden, 102 F.3d at 77. Accordingly, should 

Banks, a three-strikes litigant, wish to initiate this claim in District Court, he would be 

required to either pay the applicable fees or comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) by submitting a statement of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”