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 9-14-2005 

# In re: B oyd B rown 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 . 05-3550

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" In r e: Bo yd B r own " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 546. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/546DP S - 3 3 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- 3550

___________ 

### INRE : B O Y D B . B R O WN , JR ., Pet i t i oner

___________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( R el at ed t o C i vi l A pp. N o. 02- cv- 00187)

____________________ Sub mi t t e d u nd e rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

A ugus t11, 2005 BEFORE: RO TH, BA RRY a n d SM I TH, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed Sept ember14, 2005)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM I n t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands , B oy d B . B r ow n fi l ed an a ppeal fr om an or deri s s ued byt he Ter r i t or i al C our ti n hi s habea s corpus pr ocee di ng. O n J une 26, 2003, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d h is a p p e a l an d d e ter m in e d th a t itc o u ld n o t re a c h th e m e rits b e c a u se B ro w n h a d n o t o b tain e d a c e rtific a te o f p ro b a b le c a u se f

o r a p p e a l. P u rsu a n t to2

R ul e 14 of the V i r gi n I s l ands R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr emanded th e c a se to th e T e rrito ria l C o u rt f o r a d e ter m in a tio n w h e th e r a c e rtific a te o f p ro b a b le c a u s e s h o u ld is s u e . I n M ay2004, B r ow n fi l ed a mot i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforappoi nt m entof c o u n se l in h is T e rrito ria l C o u rt c a se . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , B ro w n f iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit of m andamus i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforan or dercompel l i ng t he Ter r i t or i al C our tt o rul e on th e p ro b a b le c a u se iss u e . H e c o n ten d s th a t th e T e rrito ria l C o u rt h a s n o t ru led b e c a u se it “gr ant ed the not i ce of

appea l . ” I n t he rul i ng he des cr i bes , t he Ter r i t or i al C our tw ai ved the p o s tin g o f

a n a p p e a l b o n d . B r ow n has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof m andamus i n t hi s C our t . H e s eeks an or der t o compel t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on hi s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el and the m andamus pe t i t i on he fi l ed ther e. I n t he al t ernat i ve, he r eques t s an or dert o r equi r e the D istric t C o u rt to ru le o n h is a p p e a l. M a n d a m u s is a n e x tr a o rd in a ry re m e d y . S e e Ke rrv . U .S . D ist. C t. , 426 U . S. 394, 402 ( 1976) . W i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the i s s ui ng cour t , m andamus tr adi t i onal l ym aybe “us ed . . . onl y‘ t o confi ne an i nfer i orcour tt o a l aw ful exer ci s e of i t s pr es cr i bed j ur i s di ct i on ort o compel i tt o exer ci s e i t s author i tyw hen i ti s i t s dut yt o do s o. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A pet i t i onerm us ts how “‘ no ot heradequa t e means t o at t ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef, and . . . a r i ghtt o t he w r i t[that ] i s cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ’ ” See In re P at enaude , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ).U nderR ul e 14 of the V i r gi n I s l ands R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, t he D i s t r i ct

C our tm aynotpr ocee d unl es s t he Ter r i t or i al C our thas det erm i ned w hethera ce r t i fi cat e of p ro b a b le c a u s e s h o u ld is s u e . See V .I.R .A .P . 1 4 (2 0 0 5 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt, i n compl i ance w i t h R ul e 14, and noti n abdi cat i on of i t s dut y , has notrul ed on the mer i t s of B ro w n ’s a p p e a l o r h is m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. T h e re f

o re , m a n d a m u s re lief

to compel t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o pr es ent l ycons i dert he appe al ort he mot i on w oul d be in a p p ro p ri a te . W e al s o decl i ne t o i s s ue an or dert o compel t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on the m andamus pe t i t i on befor e i t . A n appel l at e courtm ayi s s ue a w r i tof m andamus w hen an undue del ayi n adj udi cat i on can be cons i der ed a f ai l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on t hatr i s es to th e le v e l o f

a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n , see M adden v. M

yers , 1 0 2 F . 3 d 7 4 , 7 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de lay , o f a p p rox im atelyeigh t m o n ths, i n ruli n g o n B row n ’s m a n d a m u s p e titio n is o f c o n c e rn , s ee M

adden , 1 0 2 F .3 d a t 7 9 ; H as s i ne v. Zi m m er m an , 160 F. 3d 941, 959 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , par t i cul ar l ybeca us e B r ow n s eeks r el i ef i n t he D i s t r i ct C our tfr om a purpor t ed del ayi n t he Ter r i t or i al C our t . H ow ever , beca us e w e expe ctt hat th e D istric t C o u rt w ill p ro m p tlyc o n sid e r B ro w n ’s m a n d a m u s p e tit io n , m a n d a m u s re lief is notw arr ant ed att hi s t i m e. T he deni al of m andamus r el i ef i s w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o a r enew ed appl i cat i on i f the D i s t r i ctC our tdoes notrul e on the mandam us pet i t i on pendi ng b e f o re it w ith in 6 0 d a y s .