United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
William W. Caldwell United States District Judge
before the court are Defendant Raymond Jones' petition
for a writ of mandamus, (Doc. 185), and “Expedited
Motion for Order to Show Cause, ” (Doc.
187).For the following reasons, the court will
deny Defendant's petition and motion.
April 20, 2011, a jury convicted Defendant of drug-related
crimes, (Doc. 107), and, on September 20, 2011, he was
sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment, (Doc. 129 at 3).
On September 29, 2011, Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
(Doc. 131). On November 1, 2012, the Third Circuit affirmed
his convictions and sentence. (Doc. 147).
then filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, (Doc. 152), which this court dismissed as untimely on
October 22, 2014, (see Doc. 159). The Third Circuit
agreed that Defendant's 2255 motion was untimely and
affirmed its dismissal. (Doc. 173).
then attempted to challenge the dismissal of his 2255 motion
by filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6), (Doc. 174), and subsequently a motion under Rule
59(e), (Doc. 176), both of which this court denied,
(see Docs. 175, 177). Defendant appealed, and once
again, on October 24, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed this
court's denial of Defendant's motions. (Doc. 184).
has now filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. (Doc. 185).
He also has filed an “Expedited Motion for Order to
Show Cause, ” (Doc. 187), which is related to the
underlying mandamus petition and demands a response from the
mandamus petition asserts that a government witness-Drug
Enforcement Administration agent Keith Kierzkowski
(“Agent Kierzkowski”)-testified inconsistently
during pretrial proceedings and at trial regarding the weight
of drugs at issue in Defendant's case. (Doc. 185 at 1-3).
Defendant claims that during the grand jury and suppression
proceedings, Agent Kierzkowski testified that a co-defendant
was found with “14 grams of crack cocaine.”
(Id. at 2; Doc. 185-1 at 3). Defendant asserts that
Agent Kierzkowski then purposefully changed his story by
testifying at trial that the cocaine weighed 19 grams,
“intentionally l[ying] to the trial jurors so that his
testimony would be consistent with the laboratory
report” showing that the drugs found weighed 19.1
grams. (Doc. 185 at 3).
further maintains that Assistant United States Attorney
William Behe (“AUSA Behe”) knew that Agent
Kierzkowski's trial testimony was false, but failed to
correct it, in violation of the well-established
prosecutorial duty to correct false testimony. (Id.
at 3-4). As relief, Defendant requests that AUSA Behe be
compelled “to correct the false testimony of the
government witness” and that Defendant be awarded
“the cost of this suit.” (Id. at 6).
court has jurisdiction “of any action in the nature of
mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The writ of mandamus
“is a drastic remedy that ‘is seldom issued and
its use is discouraged.'” United States v.
Higdon, 638 F.3d 233, 245 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1069 (3d Cir.
1988)). Before the court issues this extraordinary writ,
three conditions must be satisfied: (1) the petitioner
“[must] have no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires”; (2) the petitioner must meet his
“burden of showing that [his] right to the issuance of
the writ is clear and indisputable”; and (3) if the
petitioner meets the first two requirements, “the
issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be
satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (alterations in
original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
assuming, without deciding, that Defendant has satisfied the
first prerequisite for mandamus relief due to his numerous
prior filings, it is clear that he has not carried his burden
on the second condition. That is, Defendant has failed to
show that his right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus is
clear and indisputable.
Agent Kierzkowski's testimony regarding the drug weight
at the grand jury proceedings and suppression hearing may
have differed slightly from his testimony at trial, Defendant
has not shown why this discrepancy necessitates the
extraordinary relief of the issuance of a writ of mandamus. A
jury found Defendant guilty of various drug crimes with a
corresponding drug-weight range of 5 grams or more but less
than 28 grams. (Doc. 107). According to portions of the
transcripts Defendant attached to his petition, Agent
Kierzkowski testified in the pretrial proceedings to a weight
of 14 grams of cocaine base, and then at ...