In re: Akeem Gumb

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. ALD-113.

Case: 17-1072

Document: 003112542339

Page: 1

ALD-113

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1072
___________
IN RE: AKEEM R. GUMBS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3:11-cr-00021-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 26, 2017
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 17, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
Akeem R. Gumbs petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court of
the Virgin Islands to apply Jones v. Shell, 572 F.2d 1278 (8th Cir. 1978), in ruling on his
§ 2255 motion and motion for summary judgment regarding the same. Gumbs failed to
reference a relevant District Court case number, but his mandamus petition appears to

*

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

Case: 17-1072

Document: 003112542339

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

relate to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3:11-cr-00021-001. This is the fourth petition for a writ of
mandamus Gumbs has filed in this case; we have denied his three previous petitions. See
C.A. No. 16-1452; 16-2689; 16-3904. We will likewise deny this petition.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only if a petitioner shows that he has no other
adequate means of obtaining the desired relief, and a “clear and indisputable” right to
issuance of the writ. Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing
Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). “[A] petitioner cannot
claim the lack of other means to relief if an appeal taken in due course after entry of a
final judgment would provide an adequate alternative to review by mandamus.” See In re
Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006); Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d
456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996).
Mandamus is not justified here because Gumbs can obtain an adequate alternative
remedy by appealing in due course. If the District Court enters a final order with which
Gumbs does not agree, he may timely appeal to this Court and cite whatever legal
authority he thinks persuasive and appropriate in support. What he may not do is compel
this Court to issue a writ of mandamus as a substitute for the appeals process. See In re
Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 212-13. Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

2