Court Opinion

ID: 9397825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 17:00:24.626605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.079936
License: Public Domain

CLD-090                                            NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 22-3330
                                       ___________

                               IN RE: RYAN PETERS,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                   (Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:21-cr-00419-001)
                       ____________________________________

                         Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21
                                    February 16, 2023

         Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: May 26, 2023)
                                        _________

                                         OPINION*
                                         _________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se petitioner Ryan Peters seeks a writ of mandamus. Because Peters has not

demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       In September 2021, Peters was indicted on a federal charge of attempted coercion

and enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activities. That charge is currently

pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

       In December 2022, Peters filed a mandamus petition that was transferred to this

Court. In his petition, Peters primarily discusses issues with his former court-appointed

attorney, Adrian Roe, after Peters’ arrest and during preliminary court proceedings. He

also argues that he was entrapped by an FBI agent. Peters further maintains that the

District Judge and several Magistrate Judges violated his due process rights by limiting

his ability to speak during a hearing and conducting certain proceedings over video rather

than requiring his appearance in person. Peters notes that he agreed to appear over video

after consultation with counsel but argues that he did not understand the significance of

his agreement. Finally, Peters generally raises concerns about his conditions of

confinement at various correctional institutions.

       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

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)

                                               2
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

       Mandamus relief is not appropriate here, as Peters may pursue relief in other ways.

First, we note that the District Court granted Roe’s motion to withdraw as Peters’

attorney soon after Peters filed his mandamus petition. Peters alleges that he has already

filed a civil suit against Roe, and he can pursue any claims he has against Roe in that

action. Next, Peters may raise his concerns regarding various judges’ actions and the FBI

investigation in the course of his ongoing criminal proceedings, with the assistance of his

new court-appointed attorney. Cf. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996)

(explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal).

       Finally, to the extent that Peters mentions issues with his conditions of

confinement in state or federal corrections facilities, he has alternative means of

obtaining relief — exhausting his administrative remedies, and, if appropriate, filing a

civil rights action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Thus, we will deny Peters’ petition.

                                              3