2009 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 6-24-2009 

# In Re: D e nni s Lee S m 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 . 09-2823

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: D e nni s L e e S m " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1139. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1139NOT 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. 09- 2823

___________ I N R E : DE NNI S L . S M I T H, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of D elaw are ( R el at ed t o 09- cv- 00383)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J une 23, 2009 B efor e: C H A G A R E S, A L D I SE R T and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 24, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM O n M ay29, 2009, D enni s L . Sm i t h fi l ed a not i ce of r emoval i n t he U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of D elaw are see k ing an o rde r fro m the D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss in g c rim in a l ch a rg e s b ro u g h t ag a in st S m ith in th e S tate o f D e law a re F a m ilyC o u rt, cas e N o. 0905000485. Sm i t h cl ai m ed thathe w as fr amed bySt at e Pol i ce Corpor al H uds on, w ho fal s el yarr es t ed hi m on M ay1, 2009, on a fa l s e r epor tthatSm i t h t err or i zed hi s m ot her . H e cl ai m ed ther e w as an i l l egal pl ott o m ake hi m appea rgui l t y . H e al l eged2

t hathe w as t he vi ct i m of r ace - bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on. T he mat t erw as as s i gned t o U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge J os eph J . Far nan, J r . , on J une 3, 2009. O n J une 22, 2009, Sm i t h fi l ed thi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus. I n C ountI of t he pet i t i on, Sm i t h s eeks 552 t o r ecus e J udge Farnan fr om pr es i di ng overthe not i ce of r emoval act i on. H e al l eges t hatt he D i s t r i ctJ udge has a conf l i ctof i nt er es tand i s bi as ed agai ns thi m . H e ac cus es t he D i s t r i ctJ udge of a l l eged tr i ckeryand dec ept i on i n a pr i or unr el at ed ci vi l cas e. C ountI I cont ai ns al l egat i ons agai ns tC om m i s s i onerA ndr ew K . Sout hm ay d of the D e l a w a r e F a m i l y C o u r ti n S u s s e x C o u n t y. O n J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 9 , C o m m i s s i o n e rS o u t h m a yd i s s ued an or ders chedul i ng a tr i al forFr i day , J une 26, 2009, and s t at i ng that“thi s m at t er w il l pro ce ed to tr ial an d w il l be s tay ed o n lyif th e [ fe d era l] D istri ct C o u rto rde rs ot herw i s e. ” See M andamus Pet i t i on, E xhi bi t“A . ” Sm i t h cl ai m s thatC om m i s s i oner Sout hm ay d has “no l egal , l aw ful j ur i s di ct i on overm yfede r al ci vi l act i on [i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ] , ” and ther efor e, t he Fami l yC our tor deri s s ued on J une 8, 2009, “and a l l dece i t ful det ai l s t her eon i s i l l egal har as s m entand Ter r or i s t i c Thre at eni ng t o m yC ons t i tut i onal Feder al C i vi l R i ght s of Law / C ons t i tut i onal Four t eenth ( 14 ) A m endment . ” ( M andamus th P e tit io n , 5 -6 ). H e a c c u se s C o m m iss io n e r S o u th m a y d o f re f u sin g to a c c e p t th a t th e S tate P o lice P ro b a b le C a u se sta tem e n t w a s ra c ist, “u n c o n stitu tio n a l an d f ra u d u len tlyw ritten to dece i ve . . . . ” ( I d. at6) . H e cl ai m s thatC om m i s s i onerSout hm ay d “i l l egal l yand u n c o n s titu tio n a lly c o m p e lle d m e [ to ] b e p re s e n t in h is c o u rt ro o m ” f o r a rr a ig n m e n t. ( Id .)3

Sm i t h aver s t hathe neve rent er ed a pl ea a nd thathe w as har as s ed and i l l egal l yques t i oned byC om m i s s i onerSout hm ay d, w ho al l egedl yi nt ended t o t r i ck Sm i t h i nt o m aki ng a s el fi ncri m i nati ng st at em ent. H e cl ai m s that C om m i ssi on er Sou t hm ay d “is try i ng t o u se D el aw ar e Troop 4 St at e Pol i ce/ C PL J eff r eyH uds on’ s fr audul entdocument ( s ) atan i l l egal and uncons t i tut i onal m ock tr i al t o m ake i tappea r[that ] thi s r aci s toffi cerH uds on di d no w ro n g [ .] [ T ]h is is a [ n ] illeg a l, un c o n stitu tio n a l an d d e c e itfu l co v e r-u p a ttem p t, w h ich is t ot al l yunacc ept abl e, as a mat t erof Equal J us t i ce, underthe l aw . ” ( I d. at7) . Sm i t h s t at es t hats ever al fede r al s t atut es have be en vi ol at ed, i ncl udi ng 42 U . S. C . §§ 1985( 3) , 1986, 1981( a) and 1983 and not es t hathe has r efe r r ed the mat t ert o t he J us t i ce D epart m entfor f e d e ra l p ro se c u tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 4 1 a n d 2 4 2 . It ap p e a rs th a t S m ith is a sk in g u s to t ake ove rt he cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and t o di s m i s s the cha r ges for t hw i t h bas ed on the

“ p rim a f a c ie” e v id e n c e th a t h e h a s p re se n ted w ith h is m a n d a m u s p e tit io n . H e p o in ts s peci fi cal l yt o t he s t at ementof hi s s i s t erw ho has r etr act ed a s t at ements he made t o t he St at e Pol i ce on the ni ghtof the occ urr ence . M andamus i s an appr opr i at e r emedyi n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s onl y . K errv. U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t , 426 U . S. 394, 402 ( 1976) ; Spor ck v. Pei l , 759 F. 2d 312, 314 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . “[M ] andamus mustnotbe us ed as a mer e s ubs t i tut e forappea l . ” W esti n g h o u se E lec. C o rp. v. R ep u b li c o f P h il ipp ines , 9 5 1 F . 2 d 1 4 1 4 , 1 4 2 2 (3d C ir . 1991) . A pet i t i onerm us tor di nar i l yhave no otherm eans t o obt ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef, and he musts how a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . I n r e SchoolW e not e thatSm i t h fi l ed a s i m i l arr eques tforj udi ci al di s qual i fi cat i on of J udge 1 F a rn a n in S m ith v . M e y e r, C . A ., N o . 0 7 -3 9 9 9 , w h ic h w e d e n ie d . 4 A sb esto s L it ig., 9 7 7 F . 2 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). S m ith ’s j u d ici al bias a n d im p rop ri etyclaim s ag ains t D istri ct Ju d g e F arn an are 4br oughtunder28 U . S. C . § 144. C l ai m s of ac tual j udi ci al bi as pur s uantt o § 144 ar e not appr opr i at e form andamus. G r een v. M urphy , 259 F. 2d 591, 594 ( 3d C i r . 1958) ( en b an c). T rea ti n g h is cl aim as o n e f o r j u d ici al disq u ali fica ti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a), w hi ch maybe br oughtvi a mandam us , s ee A l exande rv. Pr i m er i ca H ol di ngs , 10 F. 3d 155, 163 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , Sm i t h has nots how n a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of t he w r i t . H er e, Sm i t h’ s cl ai m i s bas ed s ol el yon t he D i s t r i ctJ udge’ s rul i ngs i n an unr el at ed mat t ert o w hi ch Sm i t h w as a part y . See Li t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es . , 510 U . S. 540, 1 555 ( 1994) ( “j udi ci al rul i ngs al one al m os tnevercons t i tut e a va l i d bas i s fora bi as or par t i al i t ym ot i on”) . M os ti m por t ant , ther e i s nothi ng i n t he pr es entr ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hat th e D is tr ic t J u d g e is b ia s e d a g a in s t S m ith . A s f o r h is re q u e st f

o r m a n d a m u s to p ro h ib it fu rth e r c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s in sta te cour tand t o di s m i s s t he cr i m i nal char ges agai ns thi m , Sm i t h cannots how thathe has no ot herm eans t o obt ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef. Sm i t h’ s pet i t i on t o r emove t he pr ocee di ngs t o t he fede r al cour ts eeks t he s ame r el i ef thathe r eques t s i n t hi s m andamus pe t i t i on. T he N ot i ce of R emoval i s pendi ng di s pos i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tand w e have no r eas on t o doubt t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r twi l l t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n o n i t . Ce r t a i n l yS mi t h h a s n o ts h o wn5

su ch an en ti tl em en t t o reli ef that w e w o u ld d ir ec t th e D istri ct C o u rtto g ran t i t. In re School A s bes t os L i t i g. , 977 F. 2d at772. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denySm i t h’ s m andamus pe t i t i on. Sm i t h’ s emer gency m o tio n f o r a te m p o ra ry re s tr a in in g o rd e r i s d e n ie d .