2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-13-2014 

# I n R e: C r ai g Al for d

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 14-1296

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: C r ai g Al for d " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 286. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/286

### 1

DLD

- 186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

___________ No. 14

- 1296

___________ IN RE: CRAIG ALFORD ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ . No. 3

- 13

- cv - 02800 )

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

February 27, 2014 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges

(Opin ion filed : March 14, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Craig Alford has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we compel the District Court to rule on a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and related m otions that Alford has filed. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny Alford’s petition. Alford filed his § 2254 petition in the District Court in November 2013. He has since filed a flurry of other motions, including motions to appoint counsel, disqualify the District Judge, change venue, and appoint class counsel. Each of these filings remains pending. On January 28, 2014, Alford filed the instant mandamus petition.

### 2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. 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 or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the
writ. Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” id. , t his case does not presen t such a situation.
A t the time Alford filed his mandamus petition, his § 2254 petition and related motions had been pending (at most) for just three months, which “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. ( stating that four months of inaction is insufficient to warrant mandamus). We are confident that the District Court will rule on Alford’ s filings in due course. Accordingly, we will deny Alford’ s mandamus petition.