In re: Gbeke Michael Awala v. Awala, C.A. Nos. 05-5479 & 06-2718 3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2008 . Awala then filed a § 2255…

1
CLD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-1143
IN RE: GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to Crim. No. 04-cr-00090)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2010
Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 4, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Gbeke Michael Awala was convicted in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware of one count of illegal re-entry into the United States
following deportation based on his status as an aggravated felon. He has filed a
document entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Stay of Deportation, Petition
for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Petition for Hearing on Immigration
Judges Judicial Misconduct, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Federal

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Government to Make Payment ($1 Billion) in U.S. Currencies to Petitioner for Damages
Under a Prima Facie Tort Claim.” For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Awala was convicted of illegal re-entry in January 2006. Following his sentencing
in May 2006, he filed a notice of appeal in this Court, raising many of the same issues
presented in the instant petition. On January 11, 2008, this Court affirmed Awala’s
conviction and sentence. See United States v. Awala, C.A. Nos. 05-5479 & 06-2718 (3d
Cir. Jan. 11, 2008). Awala then filed a § 2255 motion which the District Court denied by
opinion and order entered on January 4, 2010. On January 15, 2010, he filed a motion for
reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing in the District Court which remains pending.
In the instant petition, Awala argues that he is a United States citizen by birth and
therefore cannot be removed from this country. He demands the issuance of a United
States passport, the return of the documents demonstrating his citizenship, and the
payment of $1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, wrongful death, genocide, torture, economic loss and mental distress.
Additionally, he seeks to challenge the constitutionality of his immigration proceedings,
the conduct of his criminal trial by Judge Jordan, and the effectiveness of his attorney
during that trial. While some of these claims may be cognizable in the context of a proper
appeal from the District Court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, once his motion for
reconsideration has been addressed, none of them is the proper subject of a mandamus
petition.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances,
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982), and may not be used as a substitute
for the regular appeals process. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006). A
petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate that no other adequate means are
available to obtain the desired relief and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). This Court
affirmed Awala’s conviction and sentence in 2008. Awala’s motion for reconsideration
from the District Court’s denial of his § 2255 motion is currently pending in the District
Court. If his motion is denied, Awala may appeal to this Court. None of the relief
requested in the present motion is the proper subject of a mandamus petition and
therefore, Awala cannot demonstrate that his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
indisputable.”
Based on the foregoing, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --