D L D

- 1 3 2 N OT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______ ____

No. 2 1

- 1 4 6 4

___________

IN RE: H E R N A N N A V A R R O

, Petitioner

________ ___ __ _

___ _______ ____________

On a Petit ion for Writ of P r o h i b i t i o n a n d / o r Man dam us

f r o m t h e District Court o f the V i r g i n I s l a n d s

(Rela t ed to D

. V

. I

. C r i m

. N o

. 1

- 9 9

- c r

- 0 0 0 1 6

- 0 0 3 )

__ _____________ _____________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R

. A pp. P.

March 25, 2021

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE

, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opin ion filed : April 9, 2021 )

__ _______

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

H e r n a n N a v a r r o

, p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, p e t i t i o n s f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s o r

, i n t h e

a l t e r n a t i v e

, a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n

, c o m p e l l i n g t h e C l e r k o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e V i r g i n

* Thi s disposition is n ot an opi nion of the full Court and pur suant t o I.O.P. 5.7 does not

co ns titute bind ing prece dent.2 I s l a n d s t o p r o v i d e h i m c o p i e s o f d o c u m e n t s f r o m h i s c r i m i n a l c a s e

. W e w i l l d e n y

N a v a r r o ’ s p e t i t i o n

.

N a v a r r o w a s c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r a n d o t h e r c r i m e s i n 1 9 9 9

. T h e j u d g m e n t w a s

a f f

i r m e d o n d i r e c t ap p e a l

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L o p e z

, 2 7 1 F

. 3 d 4 7 2 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 1 )

. I n 2 0 1 1

,

N a v a rr o f i l e d a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e m o t i o n a s u n t i m e l y

, a n d w e d e n i e d N a v a rr o ’ s r e q u e s t f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e

o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y

. S e e C

. A

. N o

. 1 8

- 2 8 3 2

. T h e r e a f t e r

, N a v a rr o f i l e d a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o

F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 6 0 ( b ) i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, w h i c h i s p e n d i n g

.

I n h i s m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n

, N a v a r r o s t a t e s t h a t f o u r c o u n t s o f h i s i n d i c t m e n t w e r e

d i s m i s s e d

, t h a t h e a s k e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t C l e r k t o p r o v i d e h i m a c o p y o f t h e o r d e r

d i s m i s s i n g t h e s e c o u n t s

, a n d t h a t h e s ub m i t t e d a p a y m e n t t o c o v e r t h e c o s t

. N a v a r r o

p r o v i d e d c o rr e s p o n d e n c e h e r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e C l e r k ’ s O f f

i c e s t a t i n g t h a t

, a f t e r a d i l i g e n t

s e a r c h o f i t s r e c o r d s

, t h e o n l y d o c u m e n t i t f o u n d t h a t r e f e r e n c e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e

c o u n t s w a s t h e j u d g m e n t

. T h e C l e r k ’ s O f f

i c e s e n t N a v a r r o a c o p y o f t h e j u d g m e n t a n d

r e tu r n e d t h e p a y m e n t h e h a d s e n t t o t h e C o u r t

. N a v a r r o c o n t e n d s t h a t a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

a n d t h e r e l a t e d o r d e r w e r e n o t d o c k e t e d

, t h a t h e n e e d s t h e m t o c h a l l e n g e h i s m u r d e r

c o n v i c t i o n

, a n d t h a t w e s h o u l d c o m p e l t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t C l e r k t o p r o v i d e h i m t h e m o t i o n

t o d i s m i s s a n d t h e d i s m i s s a l o r d e r

. 1

1 Navarro petition s, in the alternative, for a wr i t of prohibitio n

. H is petition is be st

viewed as a manda m u s petition

, but the di fference between the two writs does not a ffect

whether relief is d ue

. See In re Sch. Asbestos Li tig. , 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990)

( “ Although a writ of mandamus may ap pear more appropriate when the requ est is for an3 M a n d a m u s i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y t h a t r e q u i r e s a p e t i t i o n e r t o e s t a b l i s h “ both

that there is (1) ‘ no other adeq uate means ’ to attai n the relief sought, and (2) a right t o the

writ that is ‘ clear and ind isputable [

. ] ’

. . . . ” I n r e B r i s c o e

, 4 4 8 F

. 3 d 2 0 1

, 2 1 2 ( 3 d C i r

.

2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g C h e n e y v

. U

. S

. D i s t

. C t

. f o r D

. C

. , 5 4 2 U

. S

. 3 6 7

, 3 8 0

- 8 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) (citations

and quotat ion marks omitted). N a v a rr o h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t h e s a t i s f i e s t h e s e

r e q u i r e m e n t s

.

T o t h e e x t e n t t h e d o c u m e n t s h e s e e k s a r e r e l a t e d t o h i s p e n d i n g R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n

,

h e m a y r a i s e a n y i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s o n a p p e a l i f h i s m o t i o n i s u n s u c c e s s f u l

.

T o t h e e x t e n t t h e d o c u m e n t s a r e u n r e l a t e d t o t h a t m o t i o n

, N a v a rr o h a s n o t s h o w n a c l e a r

a n d i n d i s p u t a b l e r i g h t t o a w r i t

. T h e C l e r k ’ s O f f

i c e ’ s c o rr e s p o n d e n c e r e f l e c t s t h a t s t a f f

c o u l d n o t f i n d t h e o r d e r h e r e q u e s t e d

. I n a d d i t i o n

, i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t t h e r e w a s a w r i t t e n

m o t i o n a n d o r d e r

. T h e j u d g m e n t s t a t e s t h a t d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o u n t s w a s g r a n t e d o n

A u g u s t 2

, 1 9 9 9

, o n e o f t h e d a y s o f N a v a rr o ’ s t r i a l

. T o t h e e x t e n t N a v a rr o m i g h t s e e k t h e

t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t

, t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e d e n i e d h i s r e q u e s t f o r t h e

t r a n s c r i p t s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o h i s r e c e i v i n g t h e m o n c e h e p a y s t h e a p p l i c a b l e f e e

, a n d

t h a t t h e C l e r k ’ s O f f

i c e r e c e n t l y a d v i s e d h i m o f t h e c o s t o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t s

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l d e n y N a v a rr o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s o r

, i n t h e

a l t e rn a t i v e

, a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n

.

order man d ating a ction, and a writ of proh ibition may be more accurate when the request

is to prohi bit action, modern courts have shown little concern for the technical and

historic differences between the t wo writs. ” ).