2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-16-2014

In re: James C. Platts

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-2844

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: James C. Platts" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 981.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/981
DLD-354, DLD-355, DLD-356 and DLD-357 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 14-2844, 14-2845, 14-2846 and 14-2847

___________

IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:10-cr-00176-001)

____________________________________

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

September 5, 2014

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 16, 2014 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner James Platts has filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to

compel the District Court to rule on his many pending motions which, in one form or 

another, argue that his criminal sentence needs to be corrected in order to prevent his 

incarceration from amounting to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. We will deny the 

petitions.
2

In October 2011, Platts pleaded guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud, money 

laundering, and conspiracy, and the District Court sentenced him to 46 months of 

imprisonment. Although Platts waived his appellate and collateral challenge rights in his 

plea agreement, he appealed. We granted the Government’s motion to enforce the 

appellate waiver and summarily affirmed on that basis. See United States v. Platts, C.A. 

No. 12-2327 (order entered Jan. 11, 2013). Since our mandate issued on April 25, 2013, 

Platts has filed no fewer than fourteen motions in the District Court related to his 

conviction and sentence. The District Court promptly disposed of two of those motions, 

and then found it necessary to seek clarification from Platts as to his intention in filing

one of the many other motions attacking his sentence. Platts complied with the court’s 

order by filing a response and then some – in fact, ten motions followed shortly after. 

Platts now asks that we direct the District Court to dispose of his pending motions.

Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In 

re: Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking 

the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show 

that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 

(3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). 

Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust 

Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to 

have a district court handle a case in a certain manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. 

Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). However, mandamus may be warranted when a 
3

district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction” and rises to the 

level of a due process violation. Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

The delay complained of by Platts is not tantamount to a failure to exercise 

jurisdiction, especially considering the endless stream of motions he continues to file

with the court. Because only a little more than five months have passed since Platts filed 

the bulk of his motions, we conclude that the delay does not rise to the level justifying 

our intervention. See id. We are fully confident that the District Court will adjudicate 

Platts’ motions in due course and that such adjudication will proceed more efficiently if 

Platt discontinues his current habit of inundating the District Court with several motions

per month, and affords the District Court the opportunity to dispose of the motions 

currently pending.

Accordingly, because Platts has not demonstrated that mandamus relief is 

warranted, we will deny the petitions.