2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-11-2010

In Re: Hector Huertas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1084

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Hector Huertas " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 2083.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/2083
ELD-015-E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1084

___________

IN RE: HECTOR L. HUERTAS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-cv-02009)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 11, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN AND GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed January 11, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Hector Huertas, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on

a motion for default judgment and asking this Court to set aside a scheduled conference. 

We will deny the mandamus petition.

Huertas filed a complaint against TransUnion, LLC, Experian, Inc., Doctor Ronald

Brody, NRA Group, LLC, and Citigroup, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Credit
2

Reporting Act, fraud, medical malpractice, libel, and slander. On August 21, 2009,

Huertas filed a motion for default judgment against Brody because he had not responded

to the complaint. On August 31, 2009, the District Court issued an order dismissing the

action, stating that it had been reported that the parties had settled the matter. 

Huertas wrote a letter to the District Court on November 12, 2009, requesting a

ruling on his motion for default judgment against Brody. On November 23, 2009, the

District Court issued an order reopening the case as to Huertas’s claims against Brody,

noting that it had come to the Court’s attention that Brody was not a party to the settlement

and that he remained in default. On December 10, 2009, the District Court scheduled a

conference for January 12, 2010, with Huertas and Brody. Huertas seeks a writ of

mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on his motion for default judgment and

asks us to set aside the scheduled conference.

The writ of mandamus traditionally has been used to confine an inferior court to a

lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when

it is its duty to do so. In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations

omitted). The writ is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and its use is discouraged. Id. 

A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and

that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141. 

Docket management is committed to the sound discretion of the District Court. In

re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Although mandamus
relief may be warranted where a district court’s delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise

jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), such is not the case here. 

Huertas’s action was dismissed shortly after he filed his motion for default judgment. The

District Court reopened Huertas’s case as to Brody when Huertas notified the Court of the

pending motion for default judgment. The District Court scheduled a conference shortly

thereafter. The delay in adjudicating the motion for default judgment does not amount to a

failure to exercise jurisdiction. Huertas has not shown that the right to a writ is clear and

indisputable. Similarly, mandamus relief is not warranted as to Huertas’s request that we

set aside the conference scheduled by the District Court. Huertas has not established a

right to such relief. Huertas also has not asked the District Court to defer the conference

or presented to that Court any argument as to why it should not hold the conference. 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

3