ALD-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-3380

___________

IN RE: KALLEN E. DORSETT, JR.,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Civil. No. 5-12-cr-00401-001)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson

____________________________________

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

December 28, 2017

Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 6, 2018)

__________

OPINION*

__________

PER CURIAM

Kallen Dorsett filed this mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking 

an order directing the District Court to rule on his pro se motion to vacate his sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

In 2012, Dorsett pleaded guilty to various drug and weapons offenses in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the plea 

agreement Dorsett waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge his convictions. 

On March 3, 2015, Dorsett filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. The Government filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to enforce the 

collateral challenge waiver. In response, Dorsett sought to amend his § 2255 motion to 

add additional claims. The Government again sought to dismiss the motion. Dorsett then 

filed a motion for discovery which the Government opposed. On March 6, 2017, Dorsett 

filed his reply to the Government’s motion to dismiss. During these proceedings, the 

matter was assigned to the Honorable James Knoll Gardner, who had diligently been 

ruling on requests for extension of time, requests to file documents under seal, as well as 

motions to unseal documents. On May 24, 2017, the matter was administratively 

assigned to the Honorable Legrome Davis and on October 11, 2017, it was again 

administratively reassigned to the Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. 

On November 1, 2017, Dorsett filed a mandamus petition. Dorsett objects to the 

delay in the adjudication of his § 2255 motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, we may “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 extraordinary remedy. See

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this 

extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show that he has a clear and indisputable right to 

the writ and no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett 
3

Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). “[A]n 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 (3d Cir. 1996).

Any delay in adjudicating Dorsett’s petition does not warrant mandamus relief in 

this case. Dorsett’s petition has been ripe for resolution since the filing of his reply on 

March 6, 2017. Since then, however, the District Court has administratively reassigned 

the matter twice and the matter had only been pending before the Honorable Joseph F. 

Leeson, Jr. for less than a month before Dorsett filed the present petition. We do not 

believe that the delay in ruling on the petition is so lengthy that it is “tantamount to a 

failure to exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. We are confident that the 

District Court will rule on the petition without undue delay. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.