2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-29-2011

In Re: Theodore Young, Sr.

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3126

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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: Theodore Young, Sr. " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 622.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/622
1

BLD-271 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3126

___________

IN RE: THEODORE YOUNG, SR.,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 05-cr-0056-16)

____________________________________

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

August 18, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 29, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Theodore Young, Sr., petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus reassigning his 

motion to vacate his sentence and related motions to a new district judge, and ordering 

that judge to “rule expeditiously” on those motions. We will deny Young’s petition

without prejudice.

In July 2010, Young filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. He also filed (1) a motion for return of property; (2) a motion for 
2

appointment of counsel; (3) a motion for bail pending disposition of his § 2255 motion; 

(4) a motion to strike the government’s sur-reply regarding the motion for return of 

property; and (5) a motion to strike the government’s response to his § 2255 motion as 

untimely. In the months that followed, the District Court denied Young’s motions for 

counsel, bail, and return of property, as well as his motions to strike.1

In April 2011, Young filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing 

§ 2255 Cases, for a complete copy of the transcript of his voir dire proceedings in light of 

his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the jury 

selection process. He subsequently filed a second motion urging the District Court to 

rule on his request for transcripts. On August 8, 2011, Young filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus asking us to reassign his outstanding motions to a new district judge for 

prompt resolution.

 

 Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy” available only in “exceptional 

circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 

(2004) (citation omitted). A petitioner seeking mandamus “must show that the right to 

issuance is clear and indisputable.” See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 

1996). Although matters of docket control are generally left to the court’s discretion, see

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), mandamus may be 

warranted when a district court’s delay equates to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See

 1 Young appealed the District Court’s denial of his motion for bail and his motion 

for return of property to this Court. We have since affirmed both decisions.
3

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). 

Young’s § 2255 motion was fully briefed as of October 25, 2010. Although the 

District Court has not yet ruled on that motion, it exercised jurisdiction through 

December 10, 2010, by ruling on other motions. That there has been no action for eight

months may be troubling, but it does not yet rise to a level justifying our intervention. 

See Madden, 102 F.3d at 79 (eight months of inaction insufficient to compel mandamus). 

Likewise, the District Court’s failure to rule on Young’s request for transcripts, which 

has been outstanding for four months, is not tantamount to a failure to exercise 

jurisdiction.

We are confident that the District Court will rule on Young’s pending § 2255 

motion and his motions for transcripts without any further delay. Accordingly, we will 

deny Young’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his right to seek mandamus relief 

should the District Court fail to expeditiously resolve those motions.2

 2 In his motions for transcripts, Young indicates that he intends to file a motion for 

summary judgment. While we expect the District Court to resolve Young’s 

motions for transcripts as soon as possible, we understand that the filing of 

additional motions might further delay final resolution of the § 2255 motion.