2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-21-2009 

# In Re: Mich a el Reynold s 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 ocke t N o . 09-1571

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" In Re: Mich a e l Reyno ld s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1506. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1506D L D - 141 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1571 I N RE : M I CH A EL C U RT I S RE Y N O LD S, Pet i t i oner O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 06- cv- 01400) Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

M ar ch 19, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 21, 2009

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM M i c h a e l Cu r t i s Re yn o l d s , a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e rp r o c e e d i n g p r o s e a n d i n f o r ma pauper i s , has fi l ed a mandamus pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1651, s eeki ng t o compel a ru li n g o f su m m aryjud g m en t i n h is fav o r. B egi nni ng i n J ul y2006, R eynol ds fi l ed thr ee c i vi l r i ght s compl ai nt s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, agai ns tvar i ous cor r ect i onal offi cer s s t emm i ng fr om an i nci denti n w hi ch h e w as a ll eg ed lyassa u lt ed an d d en ied law li b raryp ri v il eg es. T h e thre e a cti o n s w ere2

eventual l ycons ol i dat ed i nt o one, and R eynol ds pr ocee ded t o fi l e s ever al m ot i ons for cont empt and s um m ar yact i on agai ns tt he named defe ndant s . A ccor di ng t o R eynol ds , he has fi l ed no fe w ert han fourcont empt of cour tm ot i ons and tw enty - fi ve mot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent . A ppar ent l yunhappyw i t h t he fa ctt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thas nei t her s a n c t i o n e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t s f o rc o n t e mp tn o re n t e r e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ta g a i n s tt h e m, R eynol ds has fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on s eeki ng an i m m edi at e aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm ent in h is fav o r. T he w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedy . T o j us t i fyt he C our t ’ s us e of th is re m e d y , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h e h a s a c lea r a n d in d isp u tab le r ig h t to issua n ce o f th e w ri t. K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 ); D eM as i v. W ei s s , 669 F. 2d 114, 117 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . A s w e have pr evi ous l yhel d, t he m an ag em en t of

it s d o ck et i s co m m itted to the s o u n d d iscreti o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt . In re F in e P a p e r A n titru st L iti g ., 6 8 5 F .2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). W h e n a m a tter is di s cr et i onar y , i tcannott ypi cal l ybe s ai d t hata l i t i gant ’ s r i ghti s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ” A l l i ed C hemi cal C orp. v. D ai fl on, I nc. , 449 U . S. 33, 36 ( U . S. 1980) . I n t he i ns t antcas e, w e do nothes i t at e t o concl ude thatR eynol ds pr es ent s no extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng t he gr antof m andamus r el i ef. A r evi ew of t he docke tfort he under l y i ng pr ocee di ng s how s t hatt he part i es have been di r ect ed t o concl ude di s coverybyM ar ch 31, 2009, and thatanyaddi t i onal di s pos i t i ve mot i ons s hal l be fi l ed no l at ert han A pr i l 30, 2009. W e ar e conf i dentt hatt he3

D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l i s s ue i t s deci s i on i n a t i m el yfas hi on, pr ovi ded, of cour s e, t hat R e yn o l d s d o e s n o tc o n t i n u e t o d e l u g e t h e c o u r tw i t h h i s n u m e r o u s f i l i n g s . A d d i t i o n a l l y, R eynol ds w i l l have a n oppor tuni t yforappel l at e r evi ew of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s handl i ng of t he cont empt and di s coveryor der s , as w el l as t he mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , aft er the D istri ct C o u rth as e n tered a f inal o rde r. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus. R eynol ds ’ m ot i on t o expedi t e i s l i kew i s e deni ed.