2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-12-2011

In Re: Reginald Young

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3358

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: Reginald Young " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 368.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/368
BLD-300 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3358

___________

IN RE: REGINALD YOUNG,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civil Action No. 2-05-cr-00307-003)

____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed R. App. P.

September 29, 2011

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

(Opinion filed: October 12, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Reginald Young filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 

seeking an order that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania be compelled to rule on his pending motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A 
2

mandamus petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the 

requested relief, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. 

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

As a general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is 

within its discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). 

Indeed, given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no “clear and 

indisputable” right to have the district court handle a case on its docket in a certain 

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

mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to 

exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

Young filed his § 2255 motion on November 15, 2010. Thereafter, the 

Government requested, and was granted, an extension to file a response by March 2011. 

On March 3, 2011, the Government filed a response to Young’s § 2255 motion. On 

March 24, 2011, and on August 9, 2011, Young filed motions to expedite consideration 

of the action. Then, on September 22, 2011, he filed the current petition for a writ of 

mandamus. 

Some time has passed since the filing of Young’s motion, and a delay in ruling on 

it could become a matter of concern, see id. (noting that a seven-month delay in 

adjudicating a habeas petition may be “of concern”). However, under the circumstances, 

and despite Young’s argument to the contrary, the delay does not amount to a failure to 
3

exercise jurisdiction at this point. Furthermore, we are confident that the District Court 

will expeditiously rule on Young’s motion.

For these reasons, we will deny Young’s mandamus petition. Our denial is 

without prejudice to his filing another petition in the event that the District Court does not 

take action within a reasonable time from the date of this judgment.