2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-5-2010

Willie Shuman v. J Sabol

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1146

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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

"Willie Shuman v. J Sabol" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1778.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1778
1

HLD-092 (February 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1146

___________

IN RE: WILLIE SHUMAN,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02490)

____________________________________

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

February 25, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 5, 2010) 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Willie Shuman filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking an order compelling the District Court to act upon his motion

for a default judgment. For the reason that follows, we will deny the petition.

In May 2009, Shuman filed a prisoner civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 
2

§ 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 28,

2009, the District Court ordered the defendant to file a responsive pleading within the

time specified by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a brief document

dated that same day (July 28, 2009), Shuman asked the court to withdraw his complaint

because it was “taking too long for this court to protect my rights.” The District Court

granted Shuman’s request on August 10, 2009 and dismissed the case.

Despite the fact that his case had been dismissed, Shuman wrote to the court

in November 2009 requesting that a default judgment be entered against the defendant

because he had failed to file a timely responsive pleading. In January 2010, Shuman filed

this mandamus petition seeking to have this Court order the District Court to enter a

default judgment. About a week later, Shuman filed a motion asking the District Court to

reopen his case.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of

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

2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he

has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other

adequate means” to obtain the relief desired. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.

1996). Here, Shuman has failed to show that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to

entry of default judgment for the simple fact that there is no matter pending in which to

enter such a judgment. His case was dismissed months ago – at his request. Accordingly,
3

we will deny Shuman’s petition for a writ of mandamus.