DLD-021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3232

___________

IN RE: WHEELER ZAMICHIELI,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. Nos. 2-11-cr-00393-001 and 2-12-cr-00182-001)

____________________________________

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

October 22, 2015

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

(Opinion filed: December 31, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Wheeler Zamichieli, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

asking us to compel the District Court to order the Government to provide certain 

discovery material. We will deny the petition. 

Zamichieli was indicted on a federal firearms charge. After he prevailed on a 

motion to suppress evidence, the indictment was dismissed in December 2011. While 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Zamichieli was detained on the first charge, the Government continued to investigate 

him. This resulted in a second indictment in 2012, again on a firearms charge, but for 

different underlying conduct. Zamichieli was convicted after a jury trial in 2013, and it 

appears that he was sentenced in October 2014, although no judgment of conviction has 

yet been entered on the District Court docket.

Since then, Zamichieli has filed numerous motions in both cases. In many of 

those motions, he sought transcripts and other material related to the 2011 prosecution, 

which he claimed that he needed to prepare a motion for a new trial regarding the 2012 

prosecution. In particular, Zamichieli repeatedly sought the transcript of a federal agent’s 

grand jury testimony. The Government responded that it had provided Zamichieli with 

all discovery previously given to his defense counsel in both cases and that it was not 

required to produce the federal agent’s grand jury testimony. Ultimately, Zamichieli’s 

motions related to the transcript of grand jury testimony and other material he alleged had 

been withheld from discovery were denied in both cases.

1

In September 2015, Zamichieli filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus, 

seeking an order to compel the District Court to order the Government to disclose the 

federal agent’s grand jury testimony in the 2011 prosecution and “all other relevant 

 

1 The flurry of motions in both cases makes it cumbersome to present a strict 

chronological approach to their disposition. It is sufficient to note that, in an order 

entered in July 2015, the court presiding over the 2012 prosecution deemed the 

government to have complied with its obligations concerning the provision of material to 

Zamichieli.
3

discovery” in both prosecutions. He later supplemented the petition with a request that 

we compel the District Court to order the Government to disclose “the complete 

discovery from the Philadelphia Police Department on 2/20/11” and the “Electronic 

Sound Recording from the Municipal Court of Philadelphia on 4/26/11.”2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that should be granted only in extraordinary 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). In 

this case, Zamichieli made numerous requests for discovery in the District Courts. After 

receiving it, he continued to seek material he alleged had been improperly excluded. The 

courts ruled that the Government had complied with its obligations and denied 

Zamichieli’s requests. He may not now use a mandamus action to appeal those 

unfavorable rulings. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996); see also

Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506 (1979) (a court will not issue a writ of mandamus 

where the petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling complained of and 

all objectives now sought, by direct appeal”). Thus, Zamichieli is not entitled to 

mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. 

 

2

It is not clear whether Zamichieli ever explicitly requested the Philadelphia Police 

Department documents. However, the court denied his request for the recording from the 

Philadelphia Municipal Court on the basis that it lacked authority to order that court to 

produce it.