A L D

- 0 2 9 NOT P RECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CI RCUI T

_____ ______

No. 2 1

- 2 6 3 8

___________

IN RE: C H A R L E S B E L L O N

, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States Distri ct Court for the W e s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(Related t o W. D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 3

- 15

- cv

- 00131 & 3

- 21

- cv

- 00100)

_______________________ _ ____________

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

November 18, 2021

Before: J O R D A N

, R E S T R E P O

, a n d S C I R I C A

, C ircuit Judges

(Opinion file d: December 1, 2021 )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OPINION *

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PER CURIAM

C h a r l e s B e l l o n p e t i t i o n s f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s r e q u i r i n g t h e District C o u r t t o

r u l e i n t w o p e n d i n g m a t t e r s

. W e w i l l d e n y h i s p e t i t i o n

.

I

.

I n 2 0 0 6

, B e l l o n w a s c onvicted i n B l a i r C o u n t y

, P e n n s y l v a n i a

, o f n u m e r o u s

c h a r g e s r e l a t i n g t o h i s r o l e i n a c o c a i n e t r a f f i c k i n g r i n g

. T h e c h a r g e s i n c l u d e d 1 1 c o u nts

* This disposition is not an opi nion of the full Cou rt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does n ot2

o f possession w i t h i n t e n t t o d e l i v e r c o c a i n e

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d h i m t o a n

a g g r e g a t e t e r m o f 3 1 t o 6 2 y e a r s i n p r i s o n

, w h i c h i n c l u d e d s e n t e n c e s o f 7

- 1 4 y e a r s o n 1 0

o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n

- w i t h

- i n t e n t c o u n t s

.

B e l l o n l a t e r f

i l e d a f e d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s

. ( W

. D

.

P a

. C i v

. N o

. 3

- 1 5

- c v

- 0 0 1 3 1

. ) H e a r g u e d

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e s o f 7

- 1 4 y e a r s o n 1 0

o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n

- w i t h

- i n t e n t c o u n t s w e r e i l l e g a l b e c a u s e t h e m a x imum s e n t e n c e s f o r

t h o s e c o u n t s w a s 1 0 y e a r s

. T h e District C o u r t a g r e e d a n d g r a n t e d a c o n d i t i o n a l w r i t

r e q u i r i n g t h e B l a i r C o u n t y C o u r t o f C o m m o n P l e a s t o v a c a t e B e l l o n ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d

i m p o s e a n e w o n e i n w h i c h t h e m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e f o r each of t h e 1 0 p o s s e s s i o n

- w i t h

i n t e n t c o u n t s w o u l d b e 1 0 y e a r s

. T h e C o u r t o f C o m m o n P l e a s t h e n r e d u c e d B e l l o n ’ s

m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e o n t h o s e c o u n t s t o 1 0 y e a r s a n d r e d u c e d h i s aggregate s e n t e n c e f r o m

a t e r m o f 3 1 t o 6 2 y e a r s t o a t e r m o f 3 1 t o 4 6 y e a r s

. T h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t

a f f i r m e d o n F e b r u a r y 2 3

, 2 0 2 1

.

T h e r e a f t e r

, B e l l o n c h a l l e n g e d h i s n e w s e n t e n c e i n t h e t w o District C o u r t

p r o c e e d i n g s a t i s s u e h e r e

. F i r s t

, i n B e l l o n ’ s h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g

, h e f i l e d a m o tion t o

e n f o r c e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

. H e c l a i m e d

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h a t t h e h a b e a s j u d g m e n t

r e q u i r e d t h e C o u r t o f C o m m o n P l e a s t o c o n d u c t a p l e n a r y r e s e n t e n c i n g a n d t h a t h i s n e w

s e n t e n c e i s i l l e g a l because t h e court d i d n o t d o s o

. S e c o n d

, B e l l o n f i l e d a n e w a c t i o n

u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 i n w h i c h h e r e p e a t e d t h e s a m e c l a i m

. ( W

. D

. P a

. C i v

. N o

. 3

- 2 1

-

c onstitute binding precedent.3

c v

- 0 0 1 0 0

. ) B o t h o f t h e s e m a t t e r s r e m a i n p e n d i n g

. B e l l o n n o w h a s f i l e d a m a n d a m u s

p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e District C o u r t t o r u l e o n t h e s e m a t t e r s

.

I I

.

M a n d a m u s i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y t h a t w e h a v e t h e discretion t o g r a n t i f t h e

p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r a n d i n d i s p u t a b l e r i g h t t o r e l i e f a n d n o o t h e r m e a n s t o o b t a i n i t

. S e e

M a d d e n v

. M y e r s

, 1 0 2 F

. 3 d 7 4

, 7 9 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 9 6 )

. M a n d a m u s m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n

a District C o u r t ’ s d e l a y i n r u l i n g o n a pending m a t t e r “ i s t a n t a m o u n t t o a f a i l u r e t o

e x e r c i s e j urisdiction

. ” I d

. W e r e a d B e l l o n ’ s petition t o i n v o k e t h i s p r i n c i p l e a n d s e e k a n

o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e District C o u r t t o r u l e o n h i s t w o p e n d i n g m a t t e r s

. 1 W e d e n y

m a n d a m u s r e l i e f a s t o b o t h

.

F i r s t

, B e l l o n s e e k s a r u l i n g o n h i s motion t o e n f o r c e t h e Dist r ict C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

i n h i s h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g

. B e l l o n a r g u e s t h a t h i s m o t i o n h a s b e e n r i p e f o r d i s p o s i t i o n

s i n c e M a y 7

, 2 0 2 1

, w h e n h e f i l e d h i s r e p l y t o t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ’ s r e s p o n s e

. A s w e

o b s e r v e d i n M a d d e n

, a d e l a y o f t h a t l e n g t h i n a h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g c a n r a i s e c o n c e r n s

.

S e e i d

. a t 7 6

, 7 9 ( a d d r e s s i n g a f o u r a n d a h a l f m o n t h d e l a y i n r u l i n g o n o b j e c t i o n s t o a

R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n )

.

A s i n t h a t c a s e

, h o w e v e r

, t h e d e l a y i n t h i s c a s e “ d o e s n o t y e t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a

d e n i a l o f d u e p r o c e s s

. ” I d

. a t 7 9

. S i n c e B e l l o n f i l e d h i s r e p l y

, h e a l s o h a s f i l e d m o t i o n s

1 Bellon ’ s petition can also be read to seek an o rde r requir ing the District Court to issu e a

s pecific ruling granting him relief on the merits. To that extent

, his p etition is denied

be cause , if the District Court rules agai nst him, he can appeal. See Madden , 102 F.3d at4

f o r a status c o n f

e r e n c e a n d t o c o n v e r t t h e c o n d i t i o n a l w r i t t o a n a b s o l u t e w r i t

. ( W

. D

. P a

.

C i v

. N o

. 3

- 1 5

- c v

- 0 0 1 3 1

, E C F N o s

. 1 0 5 & 1 0 6

. ) O n September 2 2

, 2 0 2 1

, a M a g i s t r a t e

J u d g e d e n i e d t h o s e m o t i o n s a n d n o t e d t h a t B e l l o n ’ s u n d e r l y i n g motion t o e n f o r c e “ h a s

b e e n f u l l y b r i e f e d a n d

. . . w i l l r e q u i r e m e t o w r i t e a R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n

. ”

( E C F N o

. 1 0 7

. ) T h i s o r d e r r e v e a l s t h a t t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i s a w a r e o f B e l l o n ’ s m o t i o n

a n d i n t e n d s t o a d d r e s s i t i n d u e c o u r s e

. 2 T h e p a r t i e s ca n t h e n o b j e c t t o t h e M a g i s t r a t e

J u d g e ’ s r e p o r t a n d o b t a i n a r u l i n g f r o m t h e District C o u r t

. B e l l o n h a s n o t r a i s e d a n y t h i n g

w a r r a n t i n g o u r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h i s p r o c e s s a t t h i s t i m e

. 3

S e c o n d

, B e l l o n a l s o s e e k s a r u l i n g i n h i s § 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n

. B e l l o n ’ s s p e c i f i c

c o m p l a i n t i s t h a t t h e District C o u r t h a s t a k e n t o o l o n g t o r u l e o n h i s m o t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n

f o r m a p a u p e r i s

. B u t t h a t m o t i o n w a s l a t e r g r a n t e d b y t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e o n S e p t e m b e r

2 1

, 2 0 2 1

. ( W

. D

. P a

. C i v

. N o

. 3

- 2 1

- c v

- 0 0 1 0 0

, E C F N o

. 1 0

. ) T h e n e x t d a y

, t h e M a g i s t r a t e

79. We express no opinion on the merits of Bellon ’ s cha llenges.

2 Bell on h a s not specifically argued that we should direct the Magistrate Judge to issue a

report . T o the extent tha t his petition can be read to request that specific relief, we den y it

for the reasons explained herein and because he can seek relief from t he D istr i ct Court in

the first instance. Cf. Cole v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 366 F.3d 81 3, 81 7

- 18 (9th Cir. 2004)

(explaining in the mandamus context that Magistrate Judges who are not acting on the

parties ’ consent are subject t o the District Court ’ s supervision )

. We e x press no opinion

on whether such relief might be warranted if sought in the District Cour t.

3 Bellon argues that he already has experienced protracted delay in state court and already

has served 16 years of his n ow 3 1

- 46 y ear sentence. Bellon appare ntly believes that

, although the District Court granted relief as to his maxi mum sentence, his mi nimum

s entence should be sh orter to o and he should be released from prison

. On c e again

, we

express no opinion on the mer its of that issue. For purposes of th is m an damus pe tition

, however, Bellon has not shown a clear and indisputable right to an immediat e ru ling

.5

J u d g e i s s u e d a r e p o r t r e c o m m e n d i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f B e l l o n ’ s c o m p l a i n t

. ( E C F N o

. 1 2

. )

A t B e l l o n ’ s o w n r e q u e s t

, t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e h a s t w i c e e x t e n d e d h i s d e a d l i n e t o f i l e

o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e r e p o r t

, m o s t r e c e n t l y u n t i l D e c e m b e r 1

, 2 0 2 1

. ( E C F N o

. 1 7

. ) T h u s

,

B e l l o n h a s n o t s h o w n a n y b a s i s f o r o u r intervention i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g e i t h e r

.

I I I

.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l d e n y B e l l o n ’ s m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n

.