2010 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 6-29-2010 

# In Re: F rede rick B ond P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1996

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: F r e de r ick Bond " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1101. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1101D L D - 217 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. 10- 1996

___________ I N R E : F RE DE RI CK O. BO ND, 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i vi l N o. 3: 09- cv- 00290)

____________________________________ S u b m itte d P u rs u a n t to R u le 2 1 , F e d . R . A p p . P .

J une 10, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 29, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerFr eder i ck B ond, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a w r i tof m andamus di r ect i ng t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia to ru le o n h is p e n d in g h a b e a s p e tit io n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill denyt he mandam us pet i t i on.2

B ond i s curr ent l ys ervi ng a tw enty - four - m ont h s ent ence forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce a n d c o n sp ira c yto im p e d e a U n ited S tate s J u d g e in d isc h a rg e o f o f f icia l d u ties . H is expec t ed r el eas e dat e i s D ece m ber24, 2010. I n N ovember2009, he fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , chal l engi ng t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons ’ deci s i on t hat he s pend onl yt he fi nal ni netyday s of hi s s ent ence i n a R es i dent i al R eentr yC ent er . T he D istri ct C o u rtref

erred the c ase to a M ag istrate Ju d g e, w h o rec o m m en d ed that the c o u rt d is m is s th e p e titio n w ith o u t p re ju d ic e f o r f a ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . B o n d o b jec ted to th a t re c o m m e n d a tio n , av e rrin g th a t h e h a d in a d v e rte n tlyf a iled to in c lu d e in f

o rm a tio n in h is h a b e a s p e tit io n d e m o n stra tin g th a t h e h a d e x h a u ste d h is admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . I n l i ghtof thi s averm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or deron M a rc h 1 , 2 0 1 0 , d ire c tin g th e G o v e rn m e n t to re sp o n d to B o n d ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n w ith in s i xt yday s of s ervi ce of

t he or der . I n A pr i l 2010, B ond fi l ed the i ns t antm andamus pet i t i on, r eques t i ng t hatw e compel t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on hi s habea s pet i t i on. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n extr aor di narycas es . See I n r e D i et D rugs Pr ods . L i ab. L i t i g. , 418 F. 3d 372, 378 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T o obt ai n a w r i tof m andamus, a pet i t i onerm us tdemonst r at e that( 1) t her e ar e no otheradequa t e means of obt ai ni ng t he under l y i ng r el i ef he s eeks , ( 2) hi s r i ghtt o t he w r i ti s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e, ” and ( 3) “the w r i ti s appr opr i at e undert he ci r cumst ance s . ” H ol l i ngs w or t h v. P e rr y , 1 3 0 S . C t. 7 0 5 , 7 1 0 (2 0 1 0 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).3

B o n d h a s n o t m a d e th is s h o w in g h e re , fo r h e d o e s n o t n e e d a w rit o f m a n d a m u s to o b tain a rul i ng on hi s habea s pet i t i on. A l t hough a w r i tof m andamus maybe appr opr i at e w hen a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s “undue de l ayi s t ant amount t o a fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on, ” s ee M a d d e n v . M y e rs , 1 0 2 F .3 d 7 4 , 7 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), t h a t s itu a tio n is n o t p re s e n t h e re . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyB ond’ s m andamus pe t i t i on. W e trus tt hat , i n l i ghtof the t i m esen sit ivityo f h is ha b ea s claim s, the D istri ct C o u rtw il l ru le on h is ha b ea s p eti ti o n in sh o rt o rde r.