Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Harvey Patrick SHORT, Petitioner.
    No. 13-3650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Oct. 10, 2013.
    Opinion filed: Oct. 22, 2013.
    Harvey Patrick Short, Forest SCI, Mar-ienville, PA, pro se.
    Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On April 25, 2013, Harvey Patrick Short filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the District Court. The petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge on May 10, 2013. The District Attorney was granted an extension of time to file an answer, which is due on or before October 25, 2013.

On September 5, 2013, Short filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel the District Court to adjudicate his habeas petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.2005). Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when 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), there has been no such delay here. The District Attorney has yet to respond to Short’s habeas petition. Once that response is filed, we are confident that the District Court will rule on Short’s habeas petition in a timely manner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.