2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-27-2013 

# I n R e: W a y ne H off m a n

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-1468

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: W a y ne H off m a n " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1070. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1070

### DLD

- 152 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 1468

___________ IN RE: WAYNE I. HOFFMAN, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus fr om the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 12

- cv - 07018)

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

March 14, 2013 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 27, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Wayne Hoffman, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District
Court to rule o n the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel that accompanied the underlying civil rights complaint he filed on November 14, 2012, and to direct that service of process be issued by the United States Marshal’s Ser vice. While

we acknowledge that the motion s indeed remain pending and that the District Court has an obligation to rule on t hem , mandamus is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we will deny the petition

.2



### Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In re: Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) . A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right
to issuance is clear an d indisputable.” 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) (1997) . Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 ( 3d Cir. 1982) , and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a district court handle a
case in a certain manner

. S ee Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980)

. However, mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s delay “i s tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden , 102 F.3d at 79

. The delay complained of by Hoffman is not tantamount to a failure to exercise j urisdiction. Because less than four months have passed since Hoffman filed his complaint and
littl e more than two and a half months since the filing of his amended complaint on December 31, 2012 , the delay “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. (denying a mandamus petition where the district court had not ruled on petitioner’ s motion in four months). We are fully confident that the District Court will adjudicat e Hoffman ’s motions and complaint without undue delay. We likewise deny Hoffman’s petition to the extent he request s a change of venue. The express terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provide that a federal district court may transfer civil actions from one federal district court to another. While the Supreme Court has found that a federal court of appeals may effect a transfer by direct order where “ unusual circumstances ”
req uire “ extraordinary action, ” see Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co. , 382 U.S. 362, 364

- 653



### (1966) , no such unusual circumstances appear based on Hoffman = s petition. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.