CLD

- 269 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 21

- 2332

___________ IN RE: VIRGIL RIVERS , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylv a nia (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:20

- cv - 01576 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 9, 2021
Before: RESTREPO, M ATEY and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : September 15, 2021 )

_________ OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM Petitioner Virgil Rivers, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to act on his habeas petiti on
. In 2004, Rivers was convicted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Cou rt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 conspiracy to commit bank robbery, bank robbery, and unlawful use of a firearm. In
Au gust 2020, River s filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania

. 1 The District Court ordered the United States Attorney to respond , and it did so in October 2020. Since that time, Rivers ha s submitted several filings, including a motion for appointment of counsel that the District Court denied in April 2021. Most recently, Rivers filed a “Petition for Supplemental to Writ of Habeas Corpus” in May 2021 and moved for an evidentiary hearing in June 2021. He filed this mandamus petition in July 2021. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking the writ “mu st have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we accord district courts discretion in managing their dockets, s ee In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) , we may issue a writ of mandamus where there is “undue delay ” that
is “ tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden , 102 F.3d at 79.
We discern no such failure to exercise jurisdiction here. The District Court has ordered the U.S. Attorney to answer the petition, and it has; the Court also has denied Rivers’s motion for appointment of counsel. While a year has passed since Rivers

1 At the time , Rivers was housed at the FCI Allenwood facility in Pennsylvania . H e remains incarcerated there.3 orig inally f iled the petition under section 2241 , the District Court has taken acti on in the matter, with i ts latest order entered in April 2021. W e cannot say that the passage of four
months since that time qualifies as an “undue delay, ” nor is the District Court’s failure to fully adjudicate the petition within a year

— particularly when Rivers has sought to supplement his petition as recently as May 2021

— tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction

. See id. W e are confident that the Distri ct Court will rule on the habeas petition in a timely manner. For these reasons, we will deny the petition. The motion for appointment of
counsel is denied.