Benjamin Rich v.

Opinion

CLD-053 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-3277 ___________

IN RE: BENJAMIN S. RICH, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. No. 2:21-cr-00503-001) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 19, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 14, 2025) __________

OPINION* __________

After federal criminal charges against Benjamin Rich were dismissed without

prejudice, Rich filed in the District Court a motion to compel production of discovery

materials that the Government had provided to Rich’s former attorney when the charges

were pending. Rich asserted that he needed the discovery materials in part to assess

whether to pursue civil rights claims. The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. to compel, which the Government responded to on December 11, 2024. Cf DC ECF

No. 141 (arguing that “the Government no longer has an obligation under R. 16 of the

Rules of Criminal Procedure to produce discovery or any other materials to Rich,” and

taking “no position on whether Rich’s former counsel may now be ordered to produce to

Rich the discovery previously provided to counsel by the Government.”).

Rich has now filed in this Court a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. He

primarily requests that we order the District Court to take immediate action on the

pending motion to compel.

The adjudicatory delay Rich describes does not yet “rise to the level of a denial of

due process.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Furthermore, and

insofar as Rich requests that we direct the District Court to grant the motion to compel,

he does not satisfy the criteria for mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S.

183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (requiring “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”) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

Accordingly, the mandamus petition will be denied.