2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-14-2009

In Re: Russell Robinson

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2506

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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: Russell Robinson " (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1008.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1008
1

HLD-104 (June 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-2506

 

IN RE: RUSSELL ROBINSON,

Petitioner

 

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands 

(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 04-cr-00005-002 and Civ. No. 08-cv-00103)

 

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

JUNE 30, 2009

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

(Opinion filed: July 14, 2009)

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM.

On May 22, 2009, Russell Robinson filed this pro se mandamus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order to compel the District Court to rule on the

motion that he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as several pending, related

motions. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary
 1

 Notably, by orders entered May 12 and 15, 2009, the District Court ordered that two

other motions be removed from the docket. Along with the orders came warnings to

Robinson of the consequences of forging court orders and instructions that the Judge was

to approve all further motions before they could be added to the docket.

2

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

“A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must 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). In addition, as a

general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its

discretion. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). 

Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted when a District Court’s “undue

delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. The

District Court’s delay in this case, however, does not meet that standard. The District

Court received Robinson’s motion on November 17, 2008. The case was reassigned to

the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez on December 8, 2008. Then, beginning on January 14,

2009, and continuing until May 5, 2009, Robinson filed a barrage of motions, six of

which remain on the docket.1

 

In this case, only six months passed between the time that Robinson filed

his § 2255 motion and his mandamus petition. In addition, there have been circumstances

that likely contributed to the delay. One was the reassignment of the case to Judge

Sanchez one month after Robinson filed his § 2255 motion. Furthermore, Robinson’s

many motions, including those that the District Court has ordered removed from the
3

docket, may also be contributing to the delay. We cannot say that the delay in

adjudicating Robinson’s § 2255 is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction” or

“rise[s] to the level of a denial of due process.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

Accordingly, we will deny Robinson’s mandamus petition.