D L D

- 0 4 9 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 2 7 5 7

___________

IN RE: S H A R I F F B U T L E R ; J E R E M E Y M E L V I N

, Petitioner s

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus fro m the

United States District Court for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

( R elated to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:19

- cv

- 02171 )

_ _______________________ ____________

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

December 10, 2020

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPP S, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 1 8, 2020)

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e p r i s o n e r S h a r i f f B u t l e r p e t i t i o n s p r o s e f o r a w r i t o f mandamus

t h a t ( 1 ) d i r e c t s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a t o

e x p e d i t e i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s c i v i l a c t i o n a n d / o r r u l e o n t h e m o t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a

p a u p e r i s ( “ I F P ” ) t h a t h e f i l e d i n t h a t a c t i o n

, a n d ( 2 ) p r o h i b i t s H u n t i n g d o n S C I

— t h e

p r i s o n a t w h i c h h e i s i n c a r c e r a t e d

— f r o m t r a n s f e r r i n g h i m t o a n o t h e r p r i s o n d u r i n g t h e

* This dispos ition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does n ot

c onstitute bi nding precede nt.2 p e n d e n c y o f t h a t c i v i l a c t i o n

. F o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w

, w e w i l l d e n y B u t l e r ’ s

m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n

. 1

I

.

O n D e c e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 9

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d f r o m B u t l e r a p r o s e c i v i l

r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t t h a t n a m e d a h o s t o f p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s a s d e f e n d a n t s

. T h a t s a m e d a y

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t C l e r k d i r e c t e d B u t l e r t o e i t h e r p a y t h e f i l i n g f e e o r s u b m i t a c o m p l e t e d a n d

s i g n e d I F P m o t i o n w i t h i n 3 0 d a y s

. O n D e c e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 9

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d

B u t l e r ’ s I F P m o t i o n

.

I n A u g u s t 2 0 2 0

, a t w h i c h p o i n t B u t l e r ’ s I F P m o t i o n r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g

, h e f i l e d

t h i s m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n

. D u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f this p e t i t i o n

, t h e r e h a v e b e e n f u r t h e r

d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s

. O n S e p t e m b e r 2

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r t h a t

, i n t e r a l i a

, g r a n t e d B u t l e r ’ s I F P m o t i o n

, d i s m i s s e d a b o u t h a l f

o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s f r o m t h e c a s e p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 )

, a n d d i r e c t e d t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t C l e r k t o s e r v e t h e r e m a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s w i t h B u t l e r ’ s c o m p l a i n t

. A b o u t

t w o w e e k s l a t e r

, B u t l e r m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

. A b o u t a m o n t h

a f

t e r t h a t

, h e f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s S e p t e m b e r 2

, 2 0 2 0

o r d e r

. A n d i n e a r l y N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 0

, h e s u b m i t t e d h i s p r o p o s e d a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

.

1 T his mandamu s petition was also brought by Jerem e y Melvin, a fellow Pen nsylvania

st ate pris oner who is Butler ’ s c o

- plaintiff in the underlyi ng civ il action . However, on

November 3, 2020, the Clerk di smissed this mandamus action as to Mel vin be cause h e

had failed to c omply with the Clerk ’ s earlier order dire cting him to either pay the fi ling

fee or move to proceed IFP.3 B u t l e r ’ s a p p e a l ( w h i c h h a s b e e n d o c k e t e d i n t h i s C o u r t a t C

. A

. N o

. 2 0

- 3 1 1 6 ) a n d h i s

m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a r e c u r r e n t l y p e n d i n g

.

I I

.

A writ of m andamus is a drastic remedy that is available in e xtraordinary

circumstances only. See In re Diet Drugs Prods . Liab. L itig.

, 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.

2005). To obtain the writ , a petitioner must sho w that “(1) no other adequa te means

[exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to is suance of the writ is clear

and indisputable, and (3) t he wr it is app ropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth

v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010 ) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (internal quot ation

marks omitted).

B u t l e r h a s n o t m a d e t h a t s h o w i n g h e r e

. F o r o n e t h i n g

, n o t h i n g p r e v e n t s h i m f r o m

d i r e c t l y m o v i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o e x p e d i t e h i s c i v i l a c t i o n

. 2 F u r t h e r m o r e

, h e h a s n o t

d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t h e i s e n t i t l e d t o r e m a i n a t H u n t i n g d o n S C I f o r the d u r a t i o n o f h i s c i v i l

a c t i o n

, o r t h a t h e i s u n a b l e t o m o v e t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s f o r t h a t

r e l i e f

. F i n a l l y

, t o t he e x t en t t h at h e a sk s u s t o d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r u l e o n h i s I F P

2 We tak e no position on the m erits of such a motion. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Butler ’ s

m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n t a k e s i s s u e with t h e pace of his District Court pro ceedi ngs thus far,

there has not been any delay in th ose proceedings th at would be tan tamount to the

District Court f ailing to exercis e jurisdiction over his civil action. S e e M a d d e n v. M yers

, 102 F.3d 74, 7 9 (3d Cir. 199 6) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s m a y i s s u e w h e n a

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s “ u n d u e d e l a y i s t a n t a m o u n t t o a fa i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n ” ) ; c f

. i d

. ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t m a n d a m u s r e l i e f w a s n o t w a r r a n t e d i n a h a b e a s c a s e w h e r e t h e

p e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o s t r e c e n t f i l i n g h a d b e e n p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a b o u t e i g h t

m o n t h s )

. W e trust that Butler ’ s ci vil ac ti on will continue to move f orward without undue

delay.4 m o t i o n

, t h a t p o r t i o n o f h is m a n d am u s p e t i t i o n i s m o o t b e c a u s e

, a s n o t e d a b o v e

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n i n i t s S e p t e m b e r 2

, 2 0 2 0 o r d e r

. See Blanci ak v.

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a c a s e

b e c o m e s m o o t “ [ i ] f developments occur during t he course of adjudication that eliminate a

plaintiff ’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from be ing able to

grant the requ ested relief ” ).

I n v i e w o f the a b o v e

, w e w i l l d e n y B u t l e r ’ s m a n d a m u s p e t i t i on

.