DLD-005 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-3759

___________

In re: JASON ISAAC WEST,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 2-16-cv-03722)

____________________________________

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

October 6, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 22, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Jason Isaac West seeks a writ of mandamus forcing the District Court to rule on 

his most recent federal habeas corpus petition. We will deny his request.

In 2013, the District Court denied West’s first 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

1

 In 

2015, West filed a second habeas corpus petition, which he styled under 28 U.S.C. 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

1 We declined his request for a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 13-1292.
2

§ 2241. The District Court treated that petition as one brought under § 2254 and 

dismissed it as an unauthorized second or successive petition. Thereafter, West filed a 

motion to rescind the District Court’s order and a motion to correct an error on the 

docket, both of which the District Court ruled on promptly.

On July 7, 2016, West filed the habeas corpus petition at issue here, which the 

District Court assigned a new docket number. To date, the District Court has not ruled on 

West’s latest habeas corpus petition, and he now seeks an order requiring the District 

Court to do so.

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 extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate 

that he has “no other adequate means to obtain [that] relief,” and that “the right to 

issuance [of the writ] is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d 

Cir. 1996).

We may issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d 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). We will not issue the writ here, where there has been no 

delay that indicates the District Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction over West’s case. 
3

He filed his most recent habeas petition in early July, and the less-than-three-month delay 

about which he is concerned is nowhere near extraordinary. See Hassine v. Zimmerman, 

160 F.3d 941, 954 n.12 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that district court delay must be 

“extraordinary” to warrant mandamus relief). Moreover, a review of West’s prior habeas 

proceedings shows that the District Court has actively exercised its jurisdiction over his 

cases. The District Court has already adjudicated West’s first and second requests for 

habeas relief, along with his various motions. We are confident that the District Court 

will likewise adjudicate West’s latest request for habeas relief in a timely fashion. 

For these reasons, we will deny West’s request for a writ of mandamus.