2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-15-2008

In re: Michael Reyno

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-1785

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In re: Michael Reyno " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 537.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/537
HLD-147 (August 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1785

___________

 IN RE: MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the

 Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(Related to 07-cv-00712)

____________________________________

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

August 29, 2008

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: September 15, 2008)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Curtis Reynolds is a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary,

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he seeks a writ of

mandamus to compel a ruling of summary judgment in his favor.

Reynolds filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two

correctional officers and a prison board member. After filing his complaint, Reynolds

filed several motions for a default judgment against the defendants. The District Court
2

ordered the defendants to show cause why a default judgment should not issue, and the

defendants ultimately filed an answer to Reynolds’ complaint. Thereafter, Reynolds filed

a series of motions for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. After the

District Court denied those motions in light of the defendants’ answer, Reynolds filed the

instant mandamus petition claiming an entitlement to summary judgment in his favor on

the grounds that a default judgment should have been entered against the defendants.

Mandamus relief is appropriate in only the most extraordinary of circumstances. 

DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). Petitioners must demonstrate that

they have no other adequate means available to obtain the desired relief and that the right

to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daifon, Inc.,

449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980)). Here, Reynolds seeks an order directing a entry of summary

judgment in his favor, but he has not demonstrated that his right to such a ruling is “clear

and indisputable.”

As we have previously held, the management of its docket is committed to the

sound discretion of the district court. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817

(3d Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a litigant’s

right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp., 449 U.S. at 35-36. Nonetheless,

we have held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted where undue delay is tantamount

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
3

Reynolds presents none of the extraordinary circumstances warranting the grant of

mandamus relief in this case. Although he cites defendants’ delay, they have finally

answered his complaint. Nor has Reynolds demonstrated undue delay on the part of the

District Court. When the defendants delayed in filing an answer to Reynolds’s complaint,

the District Court issued orders to show cause as to why a default judgment should not

issue, and the defendants furnished an answer. The District Court has also timely

addressed Reynolds’s motions, and we trust that it will continue to move this case along

expeditiously. Therefore, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.