2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-9-2013

In Re: Maurice Thomas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2295

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

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 2013 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: Maurice Thomas " (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 256.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/256
GLD-400 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2295

___________

IN RE: MAURICE THOMAS,

 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. No. 11-cr-00618-003)

____________________________________

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

August 22, 2013

Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 9, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Maurice Thomas seeks a writ of mandamus to address alleged delays in the 

adjudication of his criminal proceedings in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

1

 A writ of 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). A party seeking mandamus must show that he has “no other adequate means 

 

1 Although he is represented by counsel in the District Court, he has filed his mandamus 

petition pro se.
2

to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” 

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks 

omitted). 

In October 2012, the District Court denied Thomas’ counseled motion to dismiss 

the charges against him based in part on his right to a speedy trial. To the extent Thomas 

intends to challenge that ruling he may not do so via a petition for a writ of mandamus. 

A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal and may not be used to circumvent 

the final judgment rule.

2

 In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 2102); In re 

Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). If he is convicted, Thomas may

challenge the District Court’s interlocutory rulings by taking an appeal after entry of a 

final judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Graves, — F.3d —, No. 12-2688, 2013 WL 

3112703 at *1–4 (3d Cir. June 21, 2013) (reviewing Speedy Trial Act claim on direct 

appeal); United States v. Willaman, 437 F.3d 354, 357–59 (3d Cir. 2006) (same). 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

 

2 A District Court’s denial of a speedy trial motion is not immediately appealable. United 

States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (“a district court’s order denying 

dismissal for an alleged violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not reviewable 

on interlocutory appeal”) (citing United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857 (1978)); 

cf. United States v. Kuper, 522 F.3d 302, 303–305 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that an order 

dismissing an indictment without prejudice pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act is not 

immediately appealable and may be appealed if defendant is re-indicted and convicted).