ALD - 197 and ALD - 198 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 17

- 1436

___________ In re: S TEVEN A. JOHN S ON , Petitioner

______________________________ ______ On a Petitio n for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No s . 1

- 16

- cv - 00162 , 1

- 16

- cv - 00973, 1

- 16

- cv - 01044, 1

- 16

- cv - 01322, 1

- 16

- cv - 01776 )

____________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 17

- 1437

___________ In re: STEVEN A. JOHNSON, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandam us from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. Nos. 1

- 16

- cv - 00261, 1

- 16

- cv - 02168, 1

- 16

- cv - 02317 )

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

April 20, 20172 Befor e: McKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO , Circuit Judges

(Opinion file d : May 1, 2017 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Steven A. Johnson is a federal prisoner. In a little over a year, Johnson has filed ten petitions for federal habeas corp us relief

— eight petitions in the District Court a nd two that he filed in other venues that were later transferred to the District Court. Johnson claims that the District Court has yet to rule on the lion’s share of his filings in those ten cases, and has now filed two petitions for writs of mandamus forcing the District Court to do so. 1 We will deny his request s . Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this extraordinar y remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means to obtain [that] relief,” and that “the right to

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 T he two mandamus petitions are materially identical , so we will not distinguish between them in this opinion
.3

issuance [of the writ] is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). W e may issue a writ of mand amus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” id. at 79, but “[i]t is not for us to micro

manage the district court’s docket,” Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 932 F.2d 170, 178 (3d Cir. 1991). Johnson’s mand amus petition s here claim that the District Cour t has refused to exercise its jurisdiction over his cases by refusing to rule on the vast majority of his numerous filings. Our review of the District Court’s docket , however, reveals precisely the opposite. The District Court dismissed Johnson’s first habeas petition and denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that he filed in that case. See Johnson v. Warden Lewisburg USP , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 00013 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2016). T he District Court dismi ssed Johnson’s second habeas petition, but, after Johnson moved for reconsideration, the District Court promptly vacated its dismissal order and ordered the Government to respond to Johnson’s habeas petition. See Johnson v. Warden Lewisburg USP , Civ. A. N o. 1:16

- cv - 00162 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2016). 2 The District Court has already dismissed Johnson’s third habeas petition, see J ohnson v. Ebbert , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 00305 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2016) , a ff’d , C.A. No. 16

- 3046, and his fourth habeas petition , s ee J oh nson v. Weber , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 00973 (M.D. Pa. June 2 9 , 2016)
. Moreover, after the

2 W e denie d Johnson’s request for a writ of mandamus forcing the District Court to rule4

District Court’s dismissal order in th e fourth case was vacated, the District Court ordered the Government to respond to Johnson’s claims. See i d
. ( Dec. 12, 2016). Th e District Court has dismissed Johnson’s fifth habeas petition , s ee J ohnson v. Warden , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 01044 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2016), and though his motions to reconsider that decision and to alter the District Court’s judgment are still pending, he d id not file them until December 2016. The District Court has ordered the Government to respond to the allegations Johnson raised in his sixth and seventh habeas petitions, see J ohnson v. Warden, USP Lee County , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 01322 (M.D. Pa. July 14 , 2016); J ohnson

v. Ebbert , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 01776 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5 , 2016), and the District Court has already transferred the eight h petition to the appropriate venue, see J ohnson v. Michigan , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 01830 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 7, 2016)
. Finally, t he District Court has dismissed Johnson’s ninth and tenth habeas petitions. S ee J ohnson v. Ebbert , Civ. A. No. 1:16

- cv - 02168 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2016); J ohnson v. Warden USP Canaan , Civ. A. No. 1:17

- cv - 0 0261 (M.D. Pa. April 13, 2017 )
. In short , the Dis trict Court is actively exercising its jurisdiction over Johnson’s
numerous cases , and we decline his invitation to micro

- manage the court’s docket

. Lacey , 932 F.2d at 178. To the extent that Johnson claims the District Court has unduly delayed its rulin gs on any of his numerous filings , our review of the District Court’s docket reveals n o extraordinary delay
. Indeed, we very recently rejected Johnson’s
on his habeas petition in that case. See C.A. No. 16

- 4235.5

request for a writ of mandamus to force the District Court to rule on Johnson’s second habe as petition

— the longest

- pending filing in any of Johnson’s ten cases. See C.A. No. 16

- 4235. We are confident that the District Court will continue to adjudicate Johnson’s flood of filings in a timely fashion
. For these reasons, we will deny Johnson’s mandamus pet ition s . 3

3 We grant Johnson’s requests to have the prison account statement filed in No. 16

- 4235 filed in these cases, to proce ed in forma pauperis , and to be excused from the service requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1).