B L D - 0 8 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 4689

___________ I N R E : AL T ON D. BR OWN, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a

( R el at ed t o E . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 10- cv- 00943)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J anuary6, 2011 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary25, 2011)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e pet i t i oner , A l t on D . B r ow n, s eeks a w r i tof m andamus di r ect i ng the D i s tr i ct C o u rt to ru le o n th e m o tio n s w h ich re m a in p e n d in g in th e u n d e rly in g c iv il ac tio n a t th is t i m e. W hi l e w e ac know l edge thatm ot i ons i ndeed r emai n pendi ng and thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt h a s a n o b lig a tio n to ru le o n th e m , m a n d a m u s is n o t w a rr a n te d in th is c a s e . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. O n M ar ch 3, 2010, B r ow n, a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s oner , fi l ed a r eques tt o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s w i th a compl ai nts ubm i t t ed under42 U . S. C . § 1983, agai ns tnum er ous2

P e n n s y l v a n i a De p a r t me n to f Co r r e c t i o n s ’ e mp l o y e e s ( h e r e a f t e rr e f e rr e d t o a s “ DOC D efe ndant s ”) and medi cal per s onnel ( col l ect i vel yr efe rr ed t o as “M edi cal D efe ndant s ”) c o n tra c ted to p ro v id e m e d ica l se rv ice s f o r th e D O C . B ro w n a lleg e d th a t w h ile i ncar cer at ed atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i ons atPi t t s bur gh, Fay ett e, and G r at er for d, he w as s ubj ect ed t o a cons pi r acy , deni ed medi cal car e, and r et al i at ed aga i ns ti n vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tand Ei ghth A m endment s . I n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 12, 2010, the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed B r ow n’ s m ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , or der ed the compl ai ntt o be fi l ed, and di r ect ed thats um m ons es be i s s ued. A w ai verof s ervi ce w as r eturned exe cut ed on the M edi cal D efe ndant s on A pr i l 1, 2010. Si nce w ai verof s ervi ce c o u ld n o t b e e f

f e c ted o n th e D O C D e f

e n d a n ts, a su m m o n s w a s is su e d a n d f o rw a rd e d to the U . S. M ar s hal ’ s Ser vi ce on M ar ch 15, 2010. T h e M e d ica l D e f

e n d a n ts re sp o n d e d to B ro w n ’s c o m p lain t b yf ili n g a m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ) o n A p ril 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , an d a re q u e st to h a v e h is i n form a paupe r i s s t atus r evoked i n acc or dance w i th the “thr ee s tr i kes ” pr ovi s i on of 28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) . I n an or deri s s ued a f ew day s l at er , the mat t erw as r eas s i gned t o a D i s tr i ctJ udge des i gnat ed fors ervi ce i n anotherdi s tr i ctw i thi n thi s C i r cui tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 292( b) . N othi ng fur therappea r s t o have happened i n thi s cas e unt i l J ul yand A ugus t2010, atw hi ch t i m e B r ow n fi l ed mot i ons s eeki ng an ext ens i on of t i m e t o r es pond t o the M edi cal D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , the entryof def aul tand def

aul tj udgm ent againstthe D O C D efen dan t s, and l eave to fi l e an am end ed co m plai nt. B row n’s m ost r ece ntm ot i on w as fi l ed on N ovember8, 2010. I n thatm ot i on, B r ow n as ked the D i s tr i ct3

C our tt o i s s ue an or derdi r ect i ng the U . S. M ar s hal ’ s Ser vi ce t o eff ectuat e s ervi ce of

the c o mp l a i n to n th e DOC De f e n d a n t s . T h e s e mo t i o n s r e ma i n p e n d i n g a tth i s t i me . On D ece m ber22, 2010, B r ow n pet i t i oned thi s C our tfora w r i tof m andamus, r eques t i ng an or dercompel l i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tt o t ake s om e ac t i on t o m ove hi s ci vi l cas e forw ar d. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n extr aor di narycas es , s ee I n r e D i et D rugs Prod s. L i ab. L i t i g. , 41 8 F . 3d 37 2, 37 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ), as the p et i t i on er m ust demonstr at e thathe has “no otheradequa t e means ” t o obt ai n the r el i ef de s i r ed and a “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). A lth o u g h a D istric t C o u rt h a s d isc re tio n o v e r th e m a n a g e m e n t o f its d o c k e t, s e e In re F in e P a p e r A n titr u s t L itig ., 6 8 5 F .2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 -1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ), a fede r al appel l at e court“mayi s s ue a w r i tof m andamus on the gr ound that[the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s ] undue del ayi s t ant amount t o a fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. ” M adden, 102 F. 3d at79. W e r ecogni ze thatm or e than fi ve mont hs have e l aps ed s i nce the t i m e B r ow n fi l ed h is m o tio n se e k in g a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to re sp o n d to th e M e d ica l D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss , w h ich itse lf

h a d b e e n f

iled b a c k in A p ril 2 0 1 0 . A d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t itis u n c l e a ra s t o wh e th e rs e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s h a s b e e n p r o p e r l ye f f e c tu a t e d o n th e DOC D efe ndant s atthi s t i m e. H ow ever , w e al s o ar e cogni zantof the fa ctthata ques t i on has been r ai s ed as t o w hetherB r ow n i s even e nt i t l ed t o cont i nue t o pr ocee d i n the under l y i ng c i v i l a c t i o n w i th th e i n f o rm a p a u p e r i s s t a tu s g r a n t e d h i m b a c k i n M a r c h . A c c o r d i n g l y, al though the del ayi n t hi s cas e “i s of conc ern, i tdoes noty etr i s e t o the l evel of a de ni al of4

due pr oces s . ” I d. ( addr es s i ng near l yfi ve- m onth del ayi n act i ng on a pet i t i on fora w r i tof h ab ea s co rpu s). T h u s, the e x tr ao rdin aryrem ed yo f m an d am u s is no t w arran ted. W e a re confi dentthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l rul e on part i es ’ out s t andi ng m ot i ons w i thoutundue del ay . T he Pet i t i on i s ther efor e deni ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce.