Court Opinion

ID: 9957134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 19:00:46.880926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.206688
License: Public Domain

ALD-095                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 24-1119
                                      ___________

                           IN RE: KONATA MATTHEWS,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                       (Related to D.C. Crim. No. 2-22-cr-00324)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                   March 28, 2024

    Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: April 3, 2024)
                                      _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Appellant Konata Matthews, proceeding pro se, pleaded guilty on two counts of

bank robbery. As part of the plea agreement, the Government recommended a sentence

of 100 months in prison. The parties also agreed that Matthews committed 7 other bank

robberies and that these additional offenses were to be treated as if Matthews had been

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
convicted of additional counts charging those offenses. The total amount of money

stolen during all 9 robberies was approximately $17,796. Upon prompting from the

District Court during the course of these proceedings, Matthews repeatedly indicated his

desire to proceed pro se.

       A few months after entering into the plea agreement, Matthews filed a notice of

intent to withdraw his guilty plea “based on the plaintiff’s illegal, improper, and

unauthorized role as fiduciary debtor with tacit hypothecations and fraudulent

concealments of IRS forms 1096, 1099a, 1099 OID, INC, and PRC, including, but not

limited to defendant/debtor’s financial statement, etc.” The District Court treated this

issue as an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and then denied the motion during a

hearing because Matthews did not assert a claim of innocence or present a valid basis for

withdrawal of his guilty plea.

       On February 15, 2024, the District Court sentenced Matthews to the terms

discussed in the plea agreement: 100 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and

an obligation to make restitution payments. On February 22, 2024, Matthews filed a

petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court in which he urges the Court “to prohibit

the final order of judgment of sentence and conviction; prohibit the guilty plea

agreement; and prohibit the clerk of court from sealing the motion.” He later filed an

amended petition, along with a motion for leave to file it, essentially repeating his

requests from his earlier petition and adding that the Court should prohibit “the entire

proceeding in the above-entitled action.”

                                              2
         A writ of mandamus or prohibition 1 is a drastic remedy that is only available in

extraordinary circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378

(3d Cir. 2005). To obtain prohibition relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that “(1) no

other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he [or she] 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) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “Even then, exercise of our power is largely discretionary.” In

re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992).

         Matthews has failed to demonstrate the three elements necessary to obtain

prohibition relief. See Hollingsworth, 558 U.S. at 190. Other adequate means—such as

direct appeal and/or a post-conviction motion—exist such that Matthews can attain the

desired relief, his right to issuance of the writ is not clear and indisputable, and the writ

would not be appropriate under the circumstances, as Matthews has not presented a

legitimate reason to doubt the validity of his plea agreement or the actions of the District

Court.

         Matthew’s motion for leave to file an amended petition is granted, and we have

considered his amended petition in reaching our decision. Accordingly, we will deny his

petition as amended for a writ of prohibition.

1
 The legal analysis is the same whether a petition is presented as a request for a writ of
mandamus or a writ of prohibition. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1313
(3d Cir. 1990).
                                               3