A L D

- 2 8 7 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 20

- 2 0 5 3

___________

IN RE: DAVID ROBINSON

, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Man damus from the

Unit ed Stat es District Court for the E a s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(Related to E

. D. Pa. C r i m . No

. 2

- 04

- cr

- 00655

- 001 )

___________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, F ed . R. App. P.

A u g u s t 2 0

, 2 0 2 0

Before: McKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPP S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 17, 2020 )

_________

OPINI ON *

_________

PER CURIAM

D a v i d R o b i n s o n

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

, filed this pro se

petition for a writ of mand amus

, a s k i n g u s t o d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r u l e o n h i s

p e n d i n g m o t i o n t o v a c a t e s e n t e n c e u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2255

. For the reasons tha t fol low,

w e will deny the petition.

* This dis position is not an opinion of the ful l Court and pur suant to I.O.P. 5.7 does no t

co nstitute bindin g precedent.2 I n 2 0 0 4

, R o b i n s o n p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o three counts of bank robbery and one count of

possession of heroin by a f e d e r a l prisone r

. The District Court ultimately sent enced him

to a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o f 151 months , followe d by five years of supervised release

.

See United States v. Robinson , 293 F

. App ’ x 958 (3d Cir. 2008). W h i l e R o b i n s o n w a s

o n s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e

, h e w a s a r r e s t e d f o r committing a n o t h e r b a n k r o b b e r y

, p l e a d e d

g u i l t y

, a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o a n o t h e r t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o f 1 5 1 m o n t h s

. S e e U n i t e d

S t a t e s v

. R o b i n s o n

, N o

. 1 9

- 3 0 4 2

, s l i p o p

. a t 4 ( 3 d C i r

. A u g

. 1 2

, 2 0 2 0 )

.

B a s e d o n t h e s e c o n d b a n k r o b b e r y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R o b i n s o n

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

. F or

t h a t violation

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p o s e d a s e n t e n c e o f 2 4 m o n t h s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. T h a t

s e n t e n c e w a s i m p o s e d i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

.

I n J a n u a r y 2 0 2 0

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

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e v i o l a t i o n

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

c h a l l e n g e

, u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 22 4 1

, t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f R o b i n s o n ’ s t i m e s e r v e d w h i l e

a w a i t i n g t r i a l f o r t h e second b a n k r o b b e r y

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

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

, e x p l a i n i n g t h a t h e w i s h e d t o f i l e a 28 U.S.C. § 22 5 5 m o t i o n t o v a c a t e h i s

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

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d o r d e r e d R o b i n s o n t o f i l e h i s § 2255 motion o n t h e p r o p e r f o r m s

.

R o b i n s o n f i l e d t h a t m o t i o n o n A u g u s t 4

, 2 0 2 0

. O n A u g u s t 7

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

o r d e r e d t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o f i l e a r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n

.3 I n M a y 2 0 2 0

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

. H e seeks an order

d i r e c t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r u l e o n h i s p e n d i n g § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

. H e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o

s u c h relief a t t h i s t i m e

.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remed y available only in extraord inary cases. See

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Li tig. , 418 F. 3d 372, 378 (3d Ci r. 2005). To obtain

mandamus relief, a petitioner must sh ow that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain

the relief he desires , (2) the party’ s right to issuan ce of the w rit is clear and indisputable,

and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circums tances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558

U .S. 183, 190 (2010) (p er curiam) (internal quotatio n marks and citation omitted).

Generally, a court’s manage ment of its docke t is discr etionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust

Litig. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), a nd there i s no “clear and indisputable” right to

have a d i str ict c ourt handle a case in a certain manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon,

Inc.

, 449 U.S. 33, 36 ( 1980). Alth ough we may issue a writ of mandamus when a distr ict

court’s “undue delay is tan tamount to a failure to exercise jurisd iction,” Madden v.

Mye rs , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), that situation is not present here

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s a c t e d w e l l w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o m a n a g e i t s d o c k e t

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s p r o m p t l y r e s p o n d e d t o R o b i n s o n ’ s f i l i n g s

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

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

, a n d o r d e r e d t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o r e s p o n d t o t h e § 2255 motion

. T h u s

, we

cannot say that there has been any undue dela y by the District Court, let alone a delay

that is tantamount to a failure to ex ercise jurisdiction or that “rise[s] to the level of a

den ial of due process.” Id. Accordingly, at this time, the extraordinary remedy of

mandamus is not warranted, and we wi ll deny R o b i n s o n ’ s mandamus petition

.