Benjamin S. Rich v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-1939
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-169 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1939 ___________

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 (Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2:21-cr-00503-01) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. June 18, 2025 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 2, 2025) _________

OPINION * _________

PER CURIAM

Benjamin S. Rich has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus compelling

the District Court to rule on his motion for sanctions and disciplinary action against his

former standby defense counsel. We will deny the petition.

Rich was indicted in 2021 on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and

aggravated identity theft. Later that year, after several requests by Rich to proceed pro se,

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. the District Court appointed Isaac Wright, Jr., as pro bono standby counsel. The

Government produced discovery to Wright. Rich later requested Wright’s removal from

his case, and in February 2024, the District Court relieved Wright as standby counsel. In

May 2024, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, explaining that

“further prosecution is not in the interests of the United States at this time.” ECF No. 134

at 2. The District Court granted the motion shortly thereafter.

Several months later, Rich filed a motion to compel Wright to turn over the

discovery provided by the Government, explaining that he needed the materials to

“support civil claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ECF No. 136 at 3. The District Court

granted the motion, on the condition that it would also appoint counsel to review the file

and redact all information subject to a protective order prior to providing the materials to

Rich directly. Two months later, Rich filed a motion to compel appointed counsel’s

compliance with the District Court’s order. The appointed attorney filed a response,

explaining that he could neither redact nor share files he did not have, as the Government

would not provide the discovery directly, and Wright had yet to produce the file despite

multiple requests. On March 12, 2025, Rich filed a motion for sanctions and disciplinary

action against Wright. The District Court has yet to rule on the motion. Rich has filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel it to do so.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available only in extraordinary

cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Rich

must show that he has no other adequate means to obtain relief and that he has a clear and

indisputable right to the writ. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per

2 curiam). While district courts have discretion over docket management, see In re Fine

Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), a writ of mandamus may be

warranted where “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.”

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). We cannot conclude that the current

delay in ruling on Rich’s pending motion—just over three months at this point—

constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction or warrants the extraordinary remedy of

mandamus. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling in due course.

We will thus deny Rich’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his filing

another mandamus petition if the District Court does not act without undue delay.