2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-24-2011

In Re: Michael Reynolds

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4676

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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: Michael Reynolds " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1927.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1927
BLD-083 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4676

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,

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. Crim. No. 05-cr-00493)

____________________________________

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

January 6, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: 1/24/2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner, Michael Curtis Reynolds, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling 

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to conduct a 

“Franks hearing.”1 Finding no basis for granting mandamus relief, we will deny the 

petition.

On July 12, 2007, Reynolds was found guilty by a jury of five counts of a six-

 

1

See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
2

count superseding indictment. He was subsequently sentenced to 360 months 

imprisonment and three years supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $500.00 

special assessment. We affirmed the Judgment and Commitment in a non-precedential 

opinion issued on March 18, 2010,2 and the Supreme Court denied Reynolds’ petition for 

writ of certiorari on October 4, 2010. Despite the unfavorable outcome of his direct 

appeal and cert. petition, Reynolds apparently believes that he is nonetheless entitled to a 

hearing regarding the affidavit of probable cause used to support the search warrant 

issued in the underlying criminal action. According to Reynolds, the District Court is 

obligated to conduct a Franks hearing as a result of this Court’s March 18th opinion and 

in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re Diet 

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), as the petitioner must 

demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the desired relief and a 

“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 

(3d Cir. 1996). We do not hesitate to conclude that Reynolds has failed to demonstrate a 

clear and indisputable right to the issuance of a mandamus petition ordering the District 

Court to hold a Franks hearing.

Contrary to Reynolds’ assertion, there is nothing in our opinion affirming the 

Judgment and Commitment which lends support to his contention. Though we stated that 

 

2

 We subsequently denied Reynolds’ motion to recall the mandate in an order 

issued on September 14, 2010. 
3

the factual question as to whether a misstatement of fact set forth in an affidavit for 

probable cause was intentionally or recklessly made is one to be determined by the 

District Court in the first instance, we also noted that “Reynolds did not assert the 

existence of a specific misstatement of fact in the District Court. Thus, there [was] no 

factual determination by the District Court to review.” United States v. Reynolds, 374 F. 

App’x. 356, 360 (3d Cir. 2010). We further held that Reynolds’ assertion that the master 

affidavit did not establish probable cause was unpersuasive. Id.

Reynolds’ reliance on Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) fares no better. While we do not 

intend to comment on the timeliness of his filing, we note that the District Court docket 

reflects that Reynolds only recently filed a “Motion Under Rule 33 for New Trial or 

Motion Under Rule 52(b), Plain Error” on December 22, 2010. Although an appellate 

court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a 

failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, the manner in which a court 

controls its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 

(3d Cir. 1982). There certainly has been no undue delay on the part of the District Court 

in considering Reynolds’ request for relief under Rules 33 and/or 52(b). Moreover, 

Reynolds has shown no clear and indisputable right to a mandamus petition compelling 

the District Court to hold a Franks hearing under Rule 52(b), where that court has yet to 

consider his motion seeking such a hearing. Additionally, any challenge to the District 

Court’s disposition of this post-judgment motion will be available in the form of an 

appeal to this Court once a decision has been issued.
4

We note that Reynolds also appears to take issue with the manner in which his 

“Hazel-Atlas” Motion has been docketed by the District Court. A review of the District 

Court docket reveals that the motion was filed in the underlying action on November 15, 

2010. The government’s opposition to the motion was received two weeks later. The 

motion thus appears ripe for disposition. Though it is unclear whether Reynolds is 

seeking to compel the District Court to act on this motion as well, we likewise conclude 

that there has been no undue delay on the part of the District Court in disposing of 

petitioner’s motion. This is especially true considering the fact that Reynolds continues

to bombard the District Court with pro se filings. Furthermore, we once again state that 

any challenge Reynolds wishes to raise as to the construction ultimately afforded his 

motion by the District Court can be presented on appeal from any unfavorable decision.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.