2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2012

In Re: Philip Carroll

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1906

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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: Philip Carroll " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1038.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1038
ALD-160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1906

___________

IN RE: PHILIP CARROLL, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to 06-cv-05515)

____________________________________

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

April 19, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 2, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

In 2006, Philip Carroll commenced an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the 

District Court against the Township of Mount Laurel seeking redress for an allegedly 

uncompensated regulatory taking of his property. By order entered June 23, 2008, the 

District Court granted the Township’s motion for summary judgment. Upon review, this 

Court affirmed. Carroll v. Twp. of Mount Laurel, 315 F. App’x 402 (3d Cir. 2009). 

On January 18, 2012, Carroll returned to the District Court and filed a motion to 

reopen the case as well as a motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling. 

Approximately one month later, on February 17, 2012, he filed a motion pursuant to Rule 
2

55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking entry of a default judgment against 

the Township on the ground that it had not responded to his motion for reconsideration.1 

Carroll subsequently filed two additional requests for a default judgment—first on March 

1, 2012, and again on March 12, 2012. The following week, on March 19, 2012, the 

District Court entered an opinion and order denying Carroll’s motions to reopen and for 

reconsideration. The court did not address Carroll’s requests for a default judgment. 

On April 4, 2012, Carroll filed the present petition for writ of mandamus asking 

us to compel the District Court to adjudicate his requests for a default judgment. We will 

deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). 

Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d 

Cir. 1996), there has been no such delay here. We are confident that the District Court 

will rule on Carroll’s motions in a timely manner. In any event, we note that, because 

summary judgment has already been entered in this case, and the motion for 

reconsideration denied, Carroll’s requests for a default judgment appear to be moot. 

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. 

 

1 At that time, the Clerk entered into the docket a “Quality Control Message” 

advising him that his request for default could not be granted because the case had been 

closed. The Clerk explained that its message was “for informational purposes only.”