2011 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

10-12-2011 

# I n R e: R eg in ald Y

oun g
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 . 11-3358

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_2011

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 2011 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: R e g in ald Y

oun g " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 368. 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_2011/368

### BLD - 30 0 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 3358

___________ IN RE: REGINALD YOUNG,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States D istrict 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., Circui t 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 compell ed 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 Pr ods. 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 reques ted 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 d ocket 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. 3 3, 3 6 (1980)

. Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted where a distri ct court’s delay “is tantamount to a fai lure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79

. Young filed his § 2255 motion o n November 15, 2010 . Thereafter, the Government requested, and w as granted , an extension to file a response by March 2011. On March 3, 2011 , the Government filed a response to Young’s § 2255 motion . O n March 24, 2011, and on August 9, 2011, Young filed motion s to expedite consideration of the action. Then, on September 22, 2011 , he filed the current petition for a writ of mand amus. 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 hab eas petition may be “of concern”). However, under the circumstanc es, and despite Young’s argument to the contrary, the delay does not amount to a failure to

### 3

exerc ise jurisdiction at this point. Furthermore, we are confident that the District Court will expeditiously rule on Young’s motion. For these reasons, we will d eny 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.