2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-23-2005 

# In Re: B ronson v

. H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2670

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: B r on s on v

. H or n" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 658. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/658DP S - 2 8 0 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2670

________________ I N R E : P UR CE L L BR ONS ON,

Pet i t i oner

____________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tFort he M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 00130)

__________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o R ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

J une 16, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, BA RRY AN D SM I TH, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A ugus t23, 2005 )

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P ER CURI AM Pet i t i onerPur cel l B r ons on and s ever al ot hers t at e pr i s oner s fi l ed s ui ti n U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i n J anuary2003. I n an or der ent er ed on N ovember12, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the pl ai nt i ffs l eave t o fi l e a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nton orbefor e D ece m ber20, 2004, ors uffe rdi s m i s s al of the cas e. I n an or derent er ed on J anuary5, 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt he pl ai nt i ffs h a d n o t f iled th e ir a m e n d e d c o m p lain t b yth e d e a d lin e , an d th u s h a d n o t co m p lied w iththe c o u rt ’s ord er. T h e c o u rto rde red the c ase clos ed . A ll o u tst an d ing m o ti o n s w ere

deni ed as m oot . I n an or derent er ed on J anuary19, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tr eopene d t he cas e af t erl earni ng t hatpl ai nt i ff M i chae l G r azi erhad notr ece i ved the court ’ s or der s due to a c ler ica l er ro r. G ra z ier w a s g iv e n a n e w d e a d lin e o f F e b ru a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 5 to f

ile h is se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. O n F eb rua ry7 , 2 0 0 5 , B ron so n fil ed a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l from the J an u ary5 o rde r, w hi ch w as docket ed i n t hi s C our tatC . A . N o. 05- 1388. B r ons on w as advi s ed byt he L egal D i vi s i on of ourC l erk’ s O ffi ce thathi s appea l w as pr ematur e, beca us e an or der ent er ed bya D i s t r i ctC our tt hatdet erm i nes t he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han al l of the par t i es i s noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e unl es s t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ect s t he entr yof ju d g m e n t p u rs u a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 4 (b ). A l s o on February7, 2005, B r ons on fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on and a mot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. I n an or derent er ed on F e b ru a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r td e n i e d t h e m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s u n t i m e l y, a n d d e n i e d t h e mo t i o n f o ra n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me . I n a s e c o n d o r d e re n t e r e d o n t h e s a me d a y , the D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d th e c a se c lo se d o n c e a g a in in so f a r a s G ra z ier h a d f

a iled to fi l e hi s amended compl ai ntbyt he dea dl i ne. T he ca s e thus beca m e r i pe forappea l on F e b ru a ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . In ste a d o f

f ili n g a n e w n o tice o f

a p p e a l, or p a y in g th e a p p e llate d o c k e tin g f e e s in t he appe al docket ed atC . A . N o. 05- 1388 ( t he appe al w as pr ocedur al l yt erm i nat ed byt he C l erk on M ar ch 31, 2005 w hen the appe l l at e docke t i ng fee s w er e notpai d) , ands ubm i t t i ng w r i t t en j ur i s di ct i onal ar gum entt hatappea l N o. 05- 1388 r i pened upon the

D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s February28, 2005 or der , C ape M ayG r eene , I nc. v. W arr en, 698 F. 2d 179, 184- 85 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng t hatpr ematur e not i ce of appea l , fi l ed af

t er d ispo sit ion o f so m e c lai m s, b u t bef o re e n tryo f f

inal jud g m en t, w il l r ipen u p o n co u rt ’s di s pos al of r emai ni ng cl ai m s ) , B r ons on, on M ay24, 2005, fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on for w ri tof m and am us. B r ons on appea r s t o compl ai n t hatt her e ar e out s t andi ng m at t er s i n t he ca s e bel ow t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d be r equi r ed t o deci de. T her e ar e not , and w e thus concl ude th a t B ro n so n is n o t en tit led to m a n d a m u s re lief b e c a u se h e h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e rig h t to i ssuance o f t his extr aordi naryform of rel i ef i s cl ear and indi sputabl e. M add en v . M y ers , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he ca s e i s overi n t he di s t r i ctcour tand al l out s t andi ng m ot i ons have be en dec i ded. B r ons on al s o as s ert s i n hi s m andamus pe t i t i on t hathe made s i gni fi canteff

or t s t o compl yw i t h t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s N ovember12 or dergr ant i ng t he p la in tif f s le a v e to f

ile a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t o n o r b e f o re D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 . T h is a lleg a tio n o f

e rro r is th e k in d th a t ca n b e a d d re ss e d o n a p p e a l an d th u s is n o t a p rop er b asis fo r a m an d am u s p eti ti o n . H elst o sk i v. M ea n o r, 4 4 2 U . S . 5 0 0 , 5 0 5 -06 (19 7 9 ). B e c a u s e t h e m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n i s e v i d e n t l y bona f i de , B ro n so n is n o t su b

jec t to t he fe e pr ovi s i ons of the Pr i s onerL i t i gat i on R eform A ct . M adden, 102 F. 3d at78- 79. W e w i l l den yt he p et i t i on for w ri tof m and am us.