2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-22-2005 

# In Re: B ri an T

yson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3529

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: B ri an T

ys on " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 667. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/6671

HP S - 1 2 3 ( J u l y 2 0 0 5 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 3529

________________ I N R E : BR I AN T YS ON, P eti ti o n er.

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o C i v. N o. 04- cv- 01173)

_____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderR ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

J ul y29, 2005 BEFORE: CH I EF J UD GE SCI RI CA , W EI S a n d GA RTH , CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed: A ugus t22, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM

B ria n T y so n p e tit io n s f

o r a w rit o f

m a n d a m u s d ire c tin g th e M a g istra te J udge t o i s s ue a r epor tand r ecomm endat i on bas ed on the cl ai m s he r ai s ed i n hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.

T y s o n is a P e n n s y lv a n ia in m a te s e rv in g a s e n te n c e f o r t h ir d d e g re e m u rd e r. O n d ire c t ap p e a l, T y so n ra ise d se v e ra l cla im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. W h ile T y s on’ s di r ectappea l w as pendi ng, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeci ded2

Co mmo n we a l t h v . Gr a n t , 8 1 3 A. 2 d 7 2 6 ( P a . 2 0 0 2 ) , h o l d i n g f o rth e f i r s tt i me th a tc l a i ms of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el s houl d be r ai s ed i n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs r athert han o n d ir ec t app ea l. Id. at 73 8 . R ely ing o n G ran t, the S u p erior C o u rtaf firm ed T y so n ’s c o n v ictio n b u t d ism iss e d h is c laim s o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e w ith o u t p re ju d ice to h is r ai s i ng them on col l at er al r evi ew . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ts ubs equent l ydeni ed T y so n ’s p e tit io n f

o r a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l. W hi l e hi s pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al w as pendi ng befor e the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt , T y s o n f ile d a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, he al l eged thatthe Super i orC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of G r ant cons t i tut es an ex pos tfac t o and due pr oces s vi ol at i on. T he M agi s t r at e J udge t o w hom t he habea s pet i t i on w as r efe r r ed conc l uded thatT y s on has notexhaus t ed s t at e courtr emedi es “w i th r es pectt o hi s i neff ect i venes s cl ai m s , ” and r ecomm ended di s m i s s i ng the habe as pet i t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the habe as pet i t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce, and dec l i ned t o i s s ue a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . T y s on fi l ed a not i ce of appea l ; hi s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility is p e n d in g in th is C o u rt . (T y s o n v . M e y e rs , C .A . N o . 0 5 -2 6 0 1 .)

I n hi s m andamus pe t i t i on, T y s on ar gues thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge m i s cons trued the cl ai m s he pr es ent ed i n hi s habea s pet i t i on. H e as s ert s thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a r epor tand r ecomm endat i on bas ed on the cl ai m s he ac tual l yr ai s ed, noton t he M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r echa r act er i zat i on of hi s cl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , he as ks us t o or dert heM agi s tr at e J udge t o i s s ue s uch a r eportand r ecomm endat i on. W e w i l l denyT y s on’ s m andamus pe t i t i on beca us e a w r i tof m andamus s houl d noti s s ue w her e r el i ef maybe obt ai ned thr ough an or di naryappea l . See Ha h n e ma n n Un i v e r s i t yHo s p . v . E d g a r , 7 4 F . 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 6 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ; Or a c a r e DP O, In c . v . M e rin , 9 7 2 F .2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T y so n h a s p u rsu e d a n a p p e a l, w h ich is the pr operpr ocedur e forchal l engi ng the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s habea s pet i t i on, i ncludi ng t he M agis t rat e Judg e’s con struct i on of h i s cl ai m s.

3