2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-2-2009 

# In Re: Regon aldo D e melio P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3647

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Re g on aldo D e me l io " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 318. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/3181

C L D - 022 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. 09- 3647

___________ In re : R E G O N A L D O N . D E M E L IO

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o W . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 05- cr - 000015)

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

O ct ober22, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember2, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R eg o n aldo D em eli o is an inm ate c u rren tl yserv ing a f ed era l sen tenc e a t FC IA l l enw ood. O n Sept ember14, 2009, D emel i o fi l ed thi s pr o s e mandam us pet i t i on, re q u e stin g th e f

o llo w in g re lief : th a t w e (1 ) “ o v e rse e ” h is c o llate ra l atta c k p ro c e e d in g s in t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, br ought pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255; ( 2) appoi nthi m couns el i n t hos e pr ocee di ngs ; and ( 3) or der2

t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on hi s § 2255 m ot i on. W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n t he mostextr aor di naryof circu m stan ce s. S ee In re D ietD rug s P rod s. L iab. L it ig., 4 1 8 F . 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (3d C ir . 2005) . I ti s nota s ubs t i tut e foran appe al . See I n r e C hamber s D ev. C o. , 148 F. 3d 214, 22 6 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). T o d em on strat e t hat m and am us i s approp ri at e, a peti t i on er m ust es t abl i s h t hathe has a “c l 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 e rs , 1 0 2 F .3 d 7 4 , 7 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). II. A s a g e n e ra l ru le, th e m a n n e r in w h ich a c o u rt d isp o se s o f c a se s o n its d o c k e t is w ith in it s d iscreti o n . S ee In re F ine P ap er A n ti tru st L it ig., 6 8 5 F . 2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 (3d C ir . 1982) . I ndeed, gi ven the di s cr et i onarynatur e of doc ketm anage m ent , t her e ca n be no “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o have the di s t r i ctcour thandl e a c as e on i t s docketi n a c e rt a in m a n n e r. S e e A llie d C h e m ic a l C o rp . v . D a if lo n , In c ., 4 4 9 U .S . 3 3 , 3 6 (1 9 8 0 ). N o n e th e les s, m a n d a m u s m a yb e w a rra n ted w h e re a d istric t co u rt’s d e lay i s ta n tam o u n t to a fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. See M adden, 102 F. 3d at79. T hi s cas e, how ever , does notpr es ents uch a s i tuat i on. D em el i o fil ed h i s § 22 55 m oti on t o v acat e his sent ence a nd con vict i on on A ug ust 12, 2008. A ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed i t s m ot i on fora t i m e ext ens i on, t he G o v ern m en t fi led a resp o n se o n Jan u ary2 0 , 2 0 0 9 . D em eli o fil ed h is r ep lyo n F eb rua ryT h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied D em eli o ’s firstm o ti o n to ap p o int co u n sel as p rem ature 1 b e c a u s e t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a d n o t y e t f i l e d i t s r e s p o n s e t o h i s § 2 2 5 5 motion. 3 12, 2009. O nl yei ghtm ont hs have pa s s ed s i nce then, dur i ng w hi ch t i m e D emel i o has fi l ed s ever al m ot i ons w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t . G i ven thes e fa ct s , w e do notfi nd anydel ay b yth e D istric t C o u rt in a d ju d ica tin g D e m e lio ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to c o n stitu te a f a ilu re to exer ci s e i t s j ur i s di ct i on. W e ar e conf i dentt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l addr es s t he mot i on appr opr i at el yi n due cour s e. III . L i ke docke tm anage m ent , t he dec i s i on t o appoi ntcouns el i n pr ocee di ngs br ought under§ 2255 i s al s o a mat t erof di s cr et i on and, as r es ul t , t her e i s no “cl earand ind ispu table” ri g h t t o that reli ef. S ee P en n sy lvan ia v. F inley , 4 8 1 U . S . 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 (19 8 7 ); s ee a l s o 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( “[w ] heneve r. . . t he courtdet erm i nes t hatt he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce s o r equi r e, r epr es ent at i on m aybe pr ovi ded i n a § 2255 pr ocee di ng) ( emphasi s added) . A s w e s peak, D emel i o’ s s econd mot i on t o appoi ntcouns el i s pendi ng befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , and the D i s t r i ctC our tal one w i l l as s es s t he mer i t s of that 1 m o tio n a t th is s tag e . T h e re f o re , w e w ill n o t d ire c t th e D istric t C o u rt to a p p o in t D e m e lio couns el i n hi s § 2255 pr ocee di ngs . N orw i l l w e ac ceptD emel i o’ s i nvi t at i on t o “over s ee” t he pr ocee di ngs befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t ; t he occ as i on forourr evi ew of the pr ocee di ngs w o u ld b e w h e n a n a p p e a l is ta k e n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yD e m e lio ’s m a n d a m u s p e titio n .