IN RE: Hernan NAVARRO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.2021-03-31No. No. 21-1103

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for mandamus was denied. Navarro failed to demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, as he could appeal a final District Court decision on his Rule 60(b) motion and raise the denial of a hearing as an issue on appeal.

Hernan Navarro, convicted of murder in 1999, filed a § 2255 motion for relief from conviction over ten years later. The District Court dismissed it as untimely. Navarro then filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking to vacate that dismissal order, which remained pending before the District Court. Navarro petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 60(b) motion. Navarro acknowledged that mandamus requires showing no other adequate remedy exists but argued he would never receive a hearing otherwise. The court found this assertion unsupported, noting that Navarro's proceedings in the District Court were still ongoing and that he could appeal any adverse decision.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Availability of mandamus when an appeal would provide an adequate alternative remedy
Whether a litigant must exhaust pending proceedings before the trial court before seeking appellate mandamus
Standards for demonstrating an alleged judicial bias

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a pending Rule 60(b) motion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

OPINION *

Hernan Navarro was convicted of murder and other crimes in the District Court of the Virgin Islands in 1999. Over 10 years later, he filed a motion seeking relief from his convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court dismissed it as untimely, and we denied Navarros request for a certificate of appealability. (C.A. No. 18-2832.) Navarro later filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) with the District Court seeking to vacate its order dismissing his § 2255 motion. Navarros Rule 60(b) motion remains pending.

At issue here is a mandamus petition that Navarro has filed with this Court. Navarro seeks an order directing the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 60(b) motion. Navarro acknowledges that mandamus is available only if, inter alia, the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006). He further acknowledges that “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.” Id. Navarro asserts, however, that “[i]f I do not get a hearing over the matter now, I will never get one.”

Navarro has not provided any reason why that might be so. To the contrary, it appears that Navarros efforts to obtain an evidentiary hearing are still ongoing before the District Court. Regardless, if the District Court denies Navarros Rule 60(b) motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, then Navarro can appeal and raise the District Courts decision not to hold a hearing as an issue on appeal. We express no opinion on whether an evidentiary hearing might be warranted or on the merits of Navarros Rule 60(b) motion. For present purposes, we hold only that Navarro has shown no reason why the issue of a hearing cannot await review if necessary on an appeal from the District Courts final order.

One final issue warrants brief discussion. Navarro asserts that he is “concerned” that the District Judge may be biased against him because Navarro threatened two witnesses against him 20 years ago. Navarro, however, has not raised anything calling the District Judges impartiality into question. He also has not requested any relief in this regard, and our review does not suggest any basis for such relief.

PER CURIAM