Case ID: f-appx_626/html/0048-01.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 Harry Dean COLYER, Petitioner.
    No. 15-3442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Nov. 24, 2015.
    Filed: Dec. 16, 2015.
    Harry Dean Colyer, Marienville, PA, pro se.
    Richard A. Consiglio, Esq., Blair County Office of District Attorney, Hollidaysburg, PA, for Superintendent Forest SCI.
    Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Harry Dean Colyer is a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se. In April 2014, Colyer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The matter was assigned to a'Magistrate Judge who ordered the Commonwealth to show cause why the writ should not be granted. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Commonwealth submitted its answer in June 2014, and Colyer submitted a reply the following month.

In October 2015, Colyer filed the present petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the District Court to rule oh his habeas petition. Shortly after the mandamus petition was docketed here, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the petition be denied. As of the date of this opinion, the District Court has not yet ruled on the petition.

Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue, all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of (our) ... jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus when an “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996), superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c), but a district court generally retains discretion over the manner in which it controls its docket, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.1982).

We recognize Colyer’s concern that no action had been taken in his case for over a year. However, given that the Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation, we are confident that the District Court will review the Report and Recommendation and adjudicate the habeas petition in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, we conclude that our intervention is not warranted at this time.

Accordingly, 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.
     
      
      . Colyer initially filed this mandamus petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court subsequently transferred it here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
     
      
      . The Magistrate Judge also denied a letter-motion that Colyer addressed to the District Court Clerk in March 2015 requesting a "more timely disposition” of his petition. (Mot. 1, ECF No. 7.)