![]() ![]() ![]() 03-cv-02094, that the Government initiated against Schwartz pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Judge Beetlestone has now ruled on the matter, and Schwartz may not use mandamus as a substitute for 2 Schwartz refers to a stay order that Judge Dalzell issued in a now-closed civil matter, United States v. Among other things, he has not shown that “no other adequate means exist,” id., to challenge Judge Beetlestone’s alleged refusal to allow him to fully address the proposed injunction. Schwartz, who was given the opportunity to “confront the grounds for the injunction” in writing and at a hearing, has not met this burden. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and 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) right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. 2 him to present evidence in opposition to the proposed injunction and (3) address his request for a hearing, and hold a hearing, to lift a stay order in a Texas state-court case.2 3 We will deny the petition. We thus remanded the matter, noting that nothing in our opinion prevented the District Court from reimposing the same injunction, provided that Schwartz was given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. 1-3 (2) recuse herself from the case because she repeatedly threatened him with contempt and refused to allow 1 Judge Beetlestone initially imposed a filing injunction in February 2018, but we vacated her order because she had not given Schwartz the requisite notice and opportunity to respond. In the petition, he asks us to order Judge Beetlestone to: (1) allow him to “confront all grounds that Judge Beetlestone is using to impose a filing injunction,” Pet. In July 2022, before the District Court ruled on the Government’s request, Schwartz filed in this Court a petition for a writ of mandamus. In March 2022, District Judge Wendy Beetlestone notified the parties that she intended to enjoin Schwartz from further groundless and vexatious filings in this case.1 At a hearing on the proposed restrictions, the Government asked the District Court to expand the scope of the proposed injunction to bar litigation beyond this case. Schwartz has unsuccessfully challenged his convictions in over twenty-five appeals and motions and has made six unsuccessful requests for the presiding judges to recuse themselves from the case. ![]() ![]() 2009) (not precedential), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Schwartz v. term of 225 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and over $1 million in restitution. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. The late District Judge Stewart Dalzell sentenced him to an above-Guidelines * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. In April 2005, following a trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a jury found Schwartz guilty of sixteen fraud-related offenses. SeptemBefore: GREENAWAY, Jr., PORTER, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 9, 2022) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Steven Allen Schwartz is a vexatious litigant currently serving a term of supervised release. 22-2276 _ IN RE: STEVEN SCHWARTZ, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. ELD-020 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |