2010 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 1-25-2010 

# In Re: Rob e r t Ge ne Rega 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 . 09-4168

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_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 2010 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: Ro be r t Ge ne Re ga " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/20181

H L D - 054 ( D ece m ber) 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. 09- 4168

___________ I N R E : RO BE RT GE NE RE GA, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 08- cv- 00156)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

D ece m ber30, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , W E I S A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary25, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i onerR ober tG ene Rega, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed thi s m andamus p eti ti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 1 (a), see k ing an o rde r co m p ell ing the D istri ct C o u rt t o a d j u d i c a t e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s mo t i o n t o c o mp e l d i s c o v e r y . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .O n the sam e date, R ega als o fil ed a m oti on t o co m pel r espon ses t o p l ai nti ffs’ fi rs t 1 and s econd s etof i nt err ogat or i es . T hatm ot i on appea r s t o be a s epar at e mot i on t o compel f ro m th e o n e a t is s u e h e re . 2 I. R ega i s curr ent l yan i nm at e att he St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on ( “SC I ”) at G re e n e , in W a yn e sb u rg , P e n n sy lv a n ia. O n F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 8 , R e g a f iled a c iv il righ ts act i on i n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tt he Secr et aryof the D epart m entof C or r ect i ons ( “D O C ”) and otherD O C and SC I offi ci al s , al l egi ng a fa i l ur e t o pr ot ect and/ ori nt ervene i n connec t i on w i t h an as s aul tbyanotheri nm at e, del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence to h is s e ri o u s m e d ic a l n e e d s , a n d re ta lia tio n .

R e g a a lleg e s th a t o n o r a b o u t M a y2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , h e iss u e d d isc o v e ryre q u e sts to th e n a m e d d e f

e n d a n ts. O n Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 9 , R e g a f iled a m o tio n to c o m p e l re sp o n se s to h is d isc o v e ryre q u e sts . R e g a su p p lem e n ted th is m o tio n o n Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 9 . D e f e n d a n ts oppos ed the mot i on, and on A ugus t31, 2009, R ega f i l ed a r epl y . O n O ct ober26, 2009,

1 R ega f i l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus s eeki ng an or dercompel l i ng t he D istric t C o u rt to ru le o n h is m o tio n . R e g a b e liev e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e lay i s p re v e n tin g R e g a f

ro m o b tain in g e v id e n tiary su p p o rt f o r h is c laim s n e c e ss a ryto re sp o n d to d e f e n d a n ts ’ a n tic ip a te d m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.

II. M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n t he mostextr aor di naryof circu m stan ce s. S ee K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 2 (19 7 6 ).3

B efor e a w r i tof m andamus w i l l i s s ue, t he pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h t hatt he w r i ti s not bei ng us ed as a s ubs t i tut e fort he r egul arappea l s pr oces s , t hatt her e i s no al t ernat i ve r emedyorot heradequa t e means t o obt ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef, and thatt he r i ghtt o t he r el i ef s oughti s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ” I d. at403; s ee a l s o I n r e D i etD rugs Pr ods . L i ab. L itig ., 4 1 8 F .3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

A s a g en era l ru le, “m att ers o f d o ck et co n tr o l and co n d u ct of d isco v ery ” a re w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t . I n r e Fi ne PaperA nt i t rus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . N onethel es s , m andamus maybe w arr ant ed i n cas es w her e a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s del ayi s “t ant amount t o a fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. ” M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T hi s cas e, how ever , does notpr es ents uch a s i tuat i on. R ega f

i l ed hi s m ot i on t o compel on J ul y15, 2009, defe ndant s ’ r es ponded, and R ega f i l ed a r epl yon A ugus t31, 2009. A del ayof fourm ont hs i n t he di s pos i t i on of a m o ti o n to co m p el “d o es n o t y et ri se to the lev el of a d en ial o f d u e p roc ess,” a n d w e a re confi dentt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l ent eran or deri n due cour s e. See I d. ( hol di ng t hat d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e la yo f

f o u r m o n th s d id n o t w a rr a n t m a n d a m u s re lie f ). A c c o rd in g ly , R e g a ’s m a n d a m u s p e tit io n w ill b e d e n ied . T h is d e n ial is w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o pet i t i onerfi l i ng a new pet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus i f the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d o e s n o t a c t w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f th e d a te o f

th is o rd e r.