Thomas Traumann v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 24-1470
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1470 ___________

IN RE: THOMAS TRAUMANN, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:18-cr-00564-001) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 2, 2024 Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 6, 2024) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Thomas Traumann, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a

writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to address an argument that he raised in

a motion challenging his judgment of conviction. For the reasons that follow, we will

deny the mandamus petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Traumann pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to

engage in illicit sexual conduct. In February 2021, the District Court imposed a sentence

of 99 months in prison. Traumann did not file a direct appeal. In April 2022, Traumann

filed a document titled “Omnibus Motion” challenging his conviction. Later that year, he

filed a mandamus petition asking this Court to order the District Court to act on his

motion. We denied the petition without prejudice to refiling if the District Court did not

decide the motion within a reasonable time. See C.A. No. 22-2530 (10/18/22 Opinion).

The District Court denied Traumann’s Omnibus Motion on February 21, 2023,

and he appealed. We summarily affirmed the District Court’s order to the extent

Traumann sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denied his application for a

certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 23-1770 (7/25/2023 Order).

Traumann now seeks mandamus relief in connection with the District Court’s

February 21, 2023, decision denying his Omnibus Motion. He states that the District

Court (and the Government in its response to his motion) did not address his argument

that he was denied his right to due process. Traumann asserts that the statute of

conviction was amended after he was indicted and that the amended statute was not

applied in his criminal case. He contends that the delay in ruling on his constitutional

claim warrants a writ of mandamus, and he asks that we compel the District Court to

address his argument.

A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must show that he has no other adequate

means to obtain relief, that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the

writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190

2 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] writ of

mandamus may not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.” Madden v. Myers,

102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996).

Traumann’s contention that the District Court did not address an argument raised

in his Omnibus Motion was a matter to be raised in his appeal of its order. He had other

adequate means to obtain relief. To the extent Traumann frames his petition as seeking

relief due to delay by the District Court, see Madden, 102 F.3d at 78 (stating that

mandamus petitions provide an avenue to address cases that have been unduly delayed),

there is no delay here. The District Court has adjudicated his motion.

Accordingly, we will deny Traumann’s mandamus petition.