2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-29-2010

In Re: Frederick Bond

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1996

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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: Frederick Bond " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1101.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1101
DLD-217 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1996

___________

IN RE: FREDERICK O. BOND,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 3:09-cv-00290)

____________________________________

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

June 10, 2010

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 29, 2010)

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Frederick Bond, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of

mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania to rule on his pending habeas petition. For the reasons that follow, we will

deny the mandamus petition.
2

Bond is currently serving a twenty-four-month sentence for obstruction of justice

and conspiracy to impede a United States Judge in discharge of official duties. His

expected release date is December 24, 2010.

In November 2009, he filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District Court, challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ decision that

he spend only the final ninety days of his sentence in a Residential Reentry Center. The

District Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended that the court

dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Bond objected to that recommendation, averring that he had inadvertently failed to

include information in his habeas petition demonstrating that he had exhausted his

administrative remedies. In light of this averment, the District Court entered an order on

March 1, 2010, directing the Government to respond to Bond’s habeas petition within

sixty days of service of the order. In April 2010, Bond filed the instant mandamus

petition, requesting that we compel the District Court to rule on his habeas petition.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain a writ of

mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) there are no other adequate means of

obtaining the underlying relief he seeks, (2) his right to the writ is “clear and

indisputable,” and (3) “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v.

Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 
3

Bond has not made this showing here, for he does not need a writ of mandamus to obtain

a ruling on his habeas petition. Although a writ of mandamus may be appropriate when a

district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” see

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), that situation is not present here. 

Accordingly, we will deny Bond’s mandamus petition. We trust that, in light of the timesensitivity of his habeas claims, the District Court will rule on his habeas petition in short

order.