Court Opinion

ID: 9374645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:00:47.204026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.922655
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                       No. 23-1101
                                       ___________

                                 IN RE: FRANK NELLOM,
                                                   Petitioner
                          ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                          (Related to Civ. No. 2-18-cv-04324)
                      ____________________________________

                      Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                    February 9, 2023

                Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: February 23, 2023)
                                         _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Frank Nellom petitions for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons that follow, we

will deny the petition.

       The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck

v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Nellom must show that he lacks adequate

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
alternative means to obtain the relief he seeks, and he carries the burden of showing that

his right to relief is clear and undisputable. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of

Ia., 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989).

       In his petition, Nellom requests that we certify a question to the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania: whether the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Nellom, 565

A.2d 770 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989), was carried out. In that decision, the Superior Court

vacated Nellom’s convictions for rape and Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI)

and remanded for a new trial. At his retrial, Nellom was convicted of rape but acquitted

of IDSI.

       We may certify to the highest court of a state a question of state law which will

control the outcome of a case pending in federal court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 110.1

(2011). Nellom, however, is not clearly and indisputably entitled to have his question

certified to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court’s decision was

carried out: Nellom was retried. Therefore, the answer the question for which he seeks

certification is clear. See United States v. Defreitas, 29 F.4th 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2022)

(noting that “[c]ertifying a question where the answer is clear is inappropriate and

unnecessary.”). Contrary to Nellom’s mistaken belief, the Superior Court did not state

that Nellom must be either convicted of both charges or acquitted of both charges at

                                              2
retrial. 1 Moreover, his rape conviction was reviewed by the state courts on direct appeal

and during PCRA proceedings. 2 Thus, he has had prior opportunities to have the state

courts address his question.

       Nellom is not entitled to the mandamus relief that he seeks. Accordingly, we will

deny the mandamus petition. His request that Respondents be ordered to file an answer is

denied.

1
  Nellom contends that his acquittal on the IDSI charge required that he be acquitted of
rape as well. He appears to base this on language in the 1989 Superior Court opinion:
“The primary issue for the jury in this case was whether there had been forcible rape or
consensual sexual intercourse.” Nellom, 565 A.2d at 776. However, the court was
explaining that the case came down to credibility and that the character evidence at issue
in the appeal was important. The Superior Court did not conclude that the only issue in
the case was consent.
2
 While Nellom attaches to his petition a 2014 order of the Court of Common Pleas
expunging the rape charge, he fails to mention that the order was mistakenly entered and
subsequently vacated. See Commonwealth v. Nellom, No. 1529 EDA 2014, 2016 WL
490024, at *2 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2016).
                                             3