Court Opinion

ID: 9397868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 20:01:18.884842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.317114
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 22-3089
                                      ___________

                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             v.

                                  ADAM SCOTT,
                                             Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                       (E.D. Pa. Criminal No. 2:10-cr-00677-001)
                     District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
                      ____________________________________

                        Submitted for Possible Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                     May 18, 2023

     Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: May 26, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant Adam Scott appeals from the District Court’s order denying his

mandamus petition. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Court’s judgment.

      In 2012, Scott was convicted of cocaine distribution and related firearms offenses.

Between 2015 and 2022, Scott filed several motions in the District Court regarding his

conviction. In September 2022, Scott filed a mandamus petition in the District Court

seeking rulings on: (1) his motion to amend or supplement his earlier motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255; (2) his request for suppression of wiretap evidence; and (3) his motion to

correct a clerical error in his judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

Scott also sought replacement counsel for his § 2255 proceedings, as his previously

appointed counsel had been disbarred. Scott’s motion was dated in May 2022 but was

not docketed until September 2022.

      During that four-month gap, the District Court ruled on Scott’s § 2255 motion and

denied his request for amendment. It also denied his discovery requests relating to his

§ 2255 motion, which addressed the electronic surveillance evidence against him. Then,

on the same day Scott’s mandamus petition was filed, the District Court granted in part

and denied his part his Rule 36 motion. No other motions were outstanding at that time.

The District Court denied Scott’s mandamus petition, and Scott timely appealed.1

      A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in

extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of

1
  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
denial of a mandamus petition for abuse of discretion, but our review of whether the
requirements for mandamus have been satisfied as a matter of law is plenary. Arnold v.
Blast Intermediate Unit 17, 843 F.2d 122, 125 (3d Cir. 1988). We may summarily affirm
a district court’s order where the “appeal does not present a substantial question.” See
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

                                            2
power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted). “Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other

adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of

the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the

circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)

(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

       The District Court appropriately denied Scott’s petition. The District Court had

already addressed Scott’s pending motions by the time he filed his mandamus petition,

and there was no reason to consider appointment of counsel after his motions were

resolved. Because Scott’s requests were moot, there was no basis for the extraordinary

remedy of mandamus relief.

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s decision.

                                               3