A L D

- 1 8 9 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____ ______

No. 2 1

- 1 8 1 4

___________

I N RE: L A N D O N T H O M A S

, Pe titioner

______________________ ___________ ___

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United Stat es District Court for the W e s t e rn District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(Related to W

. D

. P a

. C i v

. N o

. 3

- 1 9

- c v

- 0 0 0 2 1 )

_____________ _________ _

__________ ___

Submitted Pu rsuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

M a y 2 7

, 2 0 2 1

Before: M C K E E

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. a n d B I B A S

, Circ uit Judg es

(Opinion filed : A ugust 5, 2021 )

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

OPINION *

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ PER CURIAM

P etitioner L a n d o n T h o m a s

, seeks a writ o f mandamus in connection w i t h h i s

p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s f i l e d in the United S tates District Court for the

W e s t e r n Di s trict of P e n n s y l v a n i a . F or the reasons that fo llow, we wi ll deny the

mandamus petition

.

* This disposition is not an opinion o f the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5. 7 does n ot

constitu te b inding p re cedent.2 Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S .C. § 1651, which grants us the power to

“ issue all writs necessary or appropri ate in aid o f [our . . . jurisdiction] and agreeabl e to

the usages and principles of law. ” The rem edy is “ a dr astic one, to be invoked only in

extraordinary situatio ns. ” Unite d States v. Santtini , 963 F .2d 585, 593 (3d Cir. 1992). To

justify the use of this extraor dinary remedy, T h o m a s must show both a c lear and

indisputab le right to the writ and tha t he has no ot her ade quate means to obt ain the relief

desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc. , 975 F.2 d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). H e h a s n o t

d o n e s o

.

I n 2 0 1 5

, T h o m a s p l e d g u i l t y i n th e D a u p h i n C o u n t y C o u r t o f C o m m o n P l e a s t o

s e v e r a l ro b b er y c h a r g e s a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 1 2

. 5 t o 2 5 y e a r s i n p r i s o n

. I n F e b r u a r y

2 0 1 9

, h e f i l e d a h a b e a s p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4

. O n O c t o b e r 1 4

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e

M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i s s u e d a R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n

, r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e § 2 2 5 4

p e t i t i o n b e d e n i e d

. O n O c t o b e r 2 8

, 2 0 2 0

, T h o m a s f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e R e p o r t a n d

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n

, w h i c h r e m a i n p e n d i n g

. On A p r i l 2 6

, 2 0 2 1

, T h o m a s filed a petition f or

a wri t o f mandamu s w i t h t h i s C o u r t s e e k i n g a n o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o

t a k e a c t i o n o n th e R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d h i s o b j e c t i o n s to i t

.

M a n d a m u s r e l i e f i s n o t w a r r a n t e d h e r e

. A l t h o u g h a d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s d i s c r e t i o n

o v e r t h e manner in which i t c ontro ls its docke t

, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d

810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)

, m a n d a m u s r e l i e f m a y b e w a rr a n t e d w h e n undu e dela y b y t h e

c o u r t i s lengthy e n o u g h t o a m o u n t t o a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madd en v. Myers

,

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

. T h o m a s f i l e d h i s o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e R e p o r t a n d3 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n m o n t h s a g o

. B y c o m p a r i s o n

, w h e n Myers w a s

d e c i d e d

, a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t months had p a s s e d s i n c e t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d f i l e d h i s

o b j e c t i o n s t o the Magistrate Judge’s Repor t and Recomm en dation

, a s w e l l a s m o t i o n s t o

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

, without any action by the district

court. S e e M y e r s

, 1 0 2 F

. 3 d a t 7 9

. W e held that “although this delay is of concern, i t

does not yet rise to the level of a deni al of due process

. ” Id. ; s e e a l s o Hassine v.

Zimmerman , 160 F. 3d 941

, 9 5 4 n

. 1 2 ( 3rd Cir. 1 998) ( n o t i n g t h a t district c o u r t d e l a y m u s t

b e “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y ” t o w a rr a n t m a n d a m u s r e l i e f ) ; c f

. Jones v. Shell , 572 F.2d 1278, 1280

(8th Cir. 1978) (holding that 1 4

- mont hs d elay in ruling on a habeas petition, for no reason

othe r than docket congestion, wa s unreasonable).

W e find no r e a s o n a t t h i s t i m e to grant the “drastic remedy” of mandamus relief.

See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 4 18 F.3d 372 , 378 (3d Ci r. 2005). W e a r e

c o n f i d e n t that the District Court will ru le on t h e R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n within a

reasonable time

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s

, w i t h o u t

p r e j u d i c e t o T h o m a s f i l i n g a n o t h e r p e t i t i o n i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t d o s o

.