2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-13-2010

In re: Trevor Dorsett

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3026

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: Trevor Dorsett " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 438.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/438
HLD-194 (August 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 10-3026

________________

IN RE: TREVOR DORSETT,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the 

District of the Virgin Islands

(Related to D. V.I. Crim. No. 06-cr-00029)

_____________________________________

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

August 31, 2010

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 13, 2010) 

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner, Trevor Dorsett, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the 

United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands to rule upon a motion he 

filed wherein he seeks to have his sentence corrected to eliminate what he considers to be 

an invalid two point enhancement. Finding no basis for granting mandamus relief, we 

will deny the petition.
2

The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To justify the Court=s 

use of this remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right 

to issuance of the writ. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976); 

DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). Although an appellate court may 

issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to 

exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3rd Cir. 1996), the manner in 

which a court controls its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 

685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156 (1983).

The District Court docket reflects that Dorsett=s motion to correct his 

sentence was filed on March 9, 2010. That motion has been referred to a Magistrate 

Judge, as has Dorsett=s recently filed motion seeking an expeditious ruling. We cannot 

say that the delay Dorsett has experienced thus far (e.g., a little over five months) is 

tantamount to the District Court=s failure to exercise its jurisdiction or that he has suffered 

substantial prejudice. We are confident that the District Court will take action on 

Dorsett=s motion in the near future.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. This 

denial is, of course, without prejudice to Dorsett=s right to seek mandamus relief if the 

District Court does not act on his motion within a reasonable time.