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

6-13-2013 

# I n R e: N ichol a s Quee 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 . 13-2050

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: N icho l as Que e n " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 684. 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_2013/684

### CLD

- 242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 2050

___________ IN RE: NICHOLAS QUEEN ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:98

- cv - 02074 )

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

May 16, 2013 Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ , Circuit Judges

(Opin ion filed: June 13, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Nicholas Queen has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that this Court enter an order directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsyl vania to rule on Queen’s pending motion for relief from judgment filed on March 11, 2013. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)

. “A p etitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate

### 2

means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996 ). A district court ha s discretion in managing the cases on its docket

. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 8 10, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a litigant’s right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

- 36 (1980) . Nonetheless, we have held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted where undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden, 102 F.3d at 79

. Queen has not demons trated undue delay in this case. Queen’s motion was filed on March 11, 2013 , and Queen’s petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on April 16, 2013. Queen’s motion has been ripe for adjudication for a very short period of time, one that clearly does not rise to the level of undue delay and does not warrant our intervention

. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the petition will be denied.