2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-4-2010

In Re: Cazzie L. Williams

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4030

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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: Cazzie L. Williams " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 294.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/294
CLD-025 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4030

___________

IN RE: CAZZIE L. WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to 2-10-cv-02953)

____________________________________

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

October 28, 2010

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 4, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Cazzie Williams, a federal prisoner, requests a writ of mandamus to 

compel the District Court to act on the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 or, alternatively, to divest the District Court of its jurisdiction over the 

matter. We will deny his petition.

In 2003, Williams, known as the “Puffy Cheek Bandit,” pled guilty to several 
2

counts of bank robbery and was sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed 

the convictions but remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Williams, 151 Fed. 

Appx. 160, 161–62 (3d Cir. 2005). Williams received the same term of imprisonment on 

remand, and we granted the Government’s motion for summary action dismissing the 

appeal from his resentencing. See United States v. Williams, No. 06-2095, 2006 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 32494 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2006).

Since that time, Williams has attacked his conviction on jurisdictional grounds, 

most recently via a petition he filed on June 7, 2010. In it, he repeats his contention that 

the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to convict and sentence him. 

Williams filed the instant mandamus petition in this Court on October 13, 2010. 

He asserts that the District Court “has Subject Matter Jurisdiction over [his] Writ of 

Habeas Corpus,” but has “yet to rule” due to a “four (4) month delay [that] is a clear 

violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2243.” Mandamus Pet. 1 (formatting omitted). He asks us to 

“compel the District Court of New Jersey to act” on his petition, or alternatively to 

“divest the District Court of its jurisdiction” and issue the requested writ of habeas corpus 

ourselves. Id.

We will only issue a writ of mandamus in “extraordinary circumstances.” See

Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996). A petitioner seeking 

mandamus must show that (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the desired relief, 

(2) his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is 

appropriate under the circumstances of his case. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 
3

542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004); In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 383, 399 (3d 

Cir. 2006). Even when the petitioner makes a strong showing, an appellate court 

“exercises discretion whether to issue a writ of mandamus.” United States v. Farnsworth, 

456 F.3d 394, 400 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Cheney).

While we may issue a writ of mandamus in response to undue delay, only a few 

months have passed since Williams filed his habeas petition. This short time does not 

warrant mandamus relief. Cf. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (eight 

months of inaction on motions not sufficient to compel mandamus). We are fully 

confident that the District Court will rule on Williams’ petition without undue delay. 

Mandamus is also appropriate when a District Court has acted outside the scope of 

its jurisdiction. See La Buy v. Howes, 352 U.S. 249, 262 n.3 (1957); Rodgers v. U.S.

Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365, 372 (3d Cir. 1976). Williams does not allege that the District 

Court has done so with regard to his habeas petition. Rather, he is complaining that he 

was convicted by a court that lacked jurisdiction. As Williams has previously litigated 

this claim without success, it does not warrant mandamus relief now. See Williams v. 

United States, No. 08-1242, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62725, at *17–18 (D. N.J. July 21, 

2009) (dismissing Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition because, inter alia, “this [District] 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction was established by Petitioner’s criminal indictment”). 

By supplemental brief, Williams also requests that we order the District Court to 

produce financial statements regarding his restitution payment in accordance with the 

Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. To the extent that this motion requests 
4

relief separate and distinct from mandamus, it is denied.