2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-16-2014 

# I n r e: J a mes C . P l a tt s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 14-2844

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n r e: J a me s C . P l a tts " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 981. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/981DLD

- 354, DLD

- 355, DLD

- 356 and DLD

- 357 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No s . 1 4

- 2844, 14

- 2845, 14

- 2846 and 14

- 284 7

___________ IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Related to W. D. Pa. Crim. No

. 2 :1 0

- c r - 0 0176

- 001 )

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

September 5, 2014 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and KRAUSE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 16, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM Pro se peti tioner James Platts has filed petition s for writ s of mandamus seeking to compel the District Court to rule on his many pending motions which, in one form or another, argue that his criminal sentence needs to be corrected in order to prevent his incarceration from amount ing to a fundamental miscarriage of justice . We will deny the petition s .2

In October 2011, Pla tts pleaded guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud, money laundering , and conspiracy, and the District Court sentenced him to 46 months of imprisonment. Although Platts waived his appellate and coll ateral challenge rights in his plea a greement, he appeal ed. We granted the Government’s motion to enforce the appellate waiver and summarily affirmed on that basis. See United States v. Platts , C.A. No. 12

- 2327 (order entered Jan. 11, 2013). Since our mandate issued on April 25, 2013 , Platts has filed no few er than fourteen motions in the District Court related to his conviction and sentence. The District Court promptly disposed of two of those motions, and then found it necessary to seek clarification from Platts as to his intention in filing one of the man y other motions attacking his sentence. Platts complied with the court’s order by fil ing a response and then some

– in fact, ten motions followed shortly after

. Platts now asks that we direct the District Court to dispose of his pending motions

. Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In re: Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) . A petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show th at the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) , superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997)

. Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper A ntitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) , and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a district court handle a case in a certain manner

. S ee Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) . However, mandamus may be warran ted when a3

district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction” and rises to the level of a due process violation. Madden , 102 F.3d at 79

. The delay complained of by Platts is not tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction , especially considering the endless stream of motions he continues to file with the court . Because only a little more than five months have passed since Platts filed the bulk of his motion s , we conclude that the delay does not rise to the level justifying our intervention. See id

. We are fully confident that the District Court will adjudicate Platts’ motion s in due course and that such adjudication will proceed more efficiently if Platt discontinues his current habit of inundating the District Court with several motions per month, and afford s the District Court th e opportunity to dispose of th e motions currently pending

. Accordingly, because Platts has not demonstrated that mandamus relief is warranted, we will deny the petition s .