Home/Third Circuit/Leocadio Isip, Jr. v.

Leocadio Isip, Jr. v.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedFebruary 5, 2025
Docket24-3388
StatusUnpublished

This text of Leocadio Isip, Jr. v. (Leocadio Isip, Jr. v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leocadio Isip, Jr. v., (3d Cir. 2025).

Opinion

HLD-005 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-3388 ___________

IN RE: LEOCADIO VALLARTA ISIP, JR., Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Crim. No. 1:19-cr-00064-001) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 23, 2025 Before: CHIEF JUDGE CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 5, 2025) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Leocadio Vallarta Isip, Jr. has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the

reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

In 2020, Isip pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. He was sentenced to

120 months in prison. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. See United

States v. Isip, No. 22-3210, 2023 WL 5696109, at *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2023). In

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. November 2023, Isip filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The Government filed a response in March 2024, and Isip filed a memorandum in

support of his § 2255 motion in May 2024. The § 2255 motion remains pending in the

District Court.

In December 2024, Isip filed this mandamus petition. He requested dismissal of

his criminal case, an evidentiary hearing, and an order directing the District Court to

decide his § 2255 motion. By order entered January 14, 2025, the District Court directed

the Government and Isip’s former defense counsel to file affidavits addressing some of

Isip’s allegations.

The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck

v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ,

Isip must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to obtain

the desired relief and must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief

sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). As a general rule, the manner

in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion. See In re Fine

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

warranted where a District Court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise

jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

While there has been some delay in the District Court proceedings, the District

Court recently ordered responses to Isip’s allegations. We are confident that the District

Court will adjudicate the § 2255 motion in due course. To the extent that Isip requests

that we order the District Court to act on his § 2255 motion, we will deny the mandamus

2 petition without prejudice to refiling if the District Court does not decide the § 2255

motion within a reasonable time. To the extent that Isip seeks the dismissal of his

criminal case or an evidentiary hearing, we will deny the petition with prejudice as he has

the alternative remedy of requesting this relief in the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.
426 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court, 1976)
In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Boroughs, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Champion International Corporation, a New York Corporation Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, a Maine Corporation Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation International Paper Company, a New York Corporation Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation the Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of State of Alaska, in No. 81-2341. State of Colorado v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, D/B/A Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of State of Colorado, in No. 81-2342. State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities v. Boise Cascade Corp., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatch, Inc., Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Inc. A Division of Unisource Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Washington, in No. 81-2343. State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company Corporation, Butler Paper Company, Graham Paper Company, Bermingham & Prosser Company, Distribix, Inc. Paper Supply Company, and Shaughnessy-Kniep-Hawe Paper Company. Appeal of State of Missouri, in No. 81-2344. The State of Oregon, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Division of Unisource Corporation, Western Paper Company, Division of Hammermill Paper Company, and Zellerbach Paper Company, Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Oregon, in No. 81-2345. The State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions, Public Agencies and Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company, an Affiliate of Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., J. C. Paper Company, an Affiliate of Wausau Paper Mills Co., Nationwide Papers, Incorporated, a Division of Champion International Corp., Seaboard Paper Company, an Affiliate of Mead Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corp., Blake, Moffitt & Towne, a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, a Division of Unisource Corp., Ingram Paper Company and Noland Paper Company (Carpenter/offutt Paper Co.). Appeal of State of California, in No. 81-2346. Nebraska, State of v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Co., Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Kimberly Clark and Western Paper Co., a Division of Hammermill Paper Company. Appeal of State of Nebraska, in No. 81-2347. State of Iowa, by Its Attorney General, Richard C. Turner v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corporation the Mead Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation Hammermill Paper Company International Paper Company Potlatch Corporation Scott Paper Company St. Regis Paper Company Union Camp Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. And Weyerhaeuser Company. Appeal of State of Iowa, in No. 81-2348. Montana, State of v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corp. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Hammermill Paper Co. International Paper Co. Mead Corp. The Potlatch Corp. Scott Paper Co. St. Regis Paper Co. Union Camp Corp. Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. Weyerhaeuser Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. And Kimberly Clark. Appeal of State of Montana, in No. 81-2349. State of Arkansas v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Western Paper Company, Graham Paper Company. Appeal of State of Arkansas, in No. 81-2350
685 F.2d 810 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Ronald Madden v. Kevin Myers, Honorable Malcolm Muir, United States District Judge, Nominal
102 F.3d 74 (Third Circuit, 1996)
Sporck v. Peil
759 F.2d 312 (Third Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Leocadio Isip, Jr. v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leocadio-isip-jr-v-ca3-2025.