DLD-270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3078

___________

IN RE: CHARLES PALADINO,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. No. 11-cv-07470)

____________________________________

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

August 30, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 6, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Charles Paladino petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to act on his request for the 

production of documents in the proceedings on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

I.

In his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Paladino challenges his 2008 

conviction for robbery, robbery of a motor vehicle, conspiracy, and possession of the 
2

instruments of crime in connection with the February 2006 robbery of a taxi cab. The 

District Court referred Paladino’s petition to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge 

originally recommended that Paladino’s petition be dismissed without prejudice because 

it included both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Of the numerous claims asserted in 

Paladino’s petition, the only ones the Magistrate Judge found that he had exhausted were 

(1) his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) his claim that his sentence 

was illegal because the sentences for robbery and robbery of an automobile should have 

merged. Paladino filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(R&R) in which he indicated that he wanted to withdraw his unexhausted claims and 

proceed only with the exhausted claims. The District Court approved and adopted the 

R&R in part. In light of Paladino’s response, the District Court concluded that, rather 

than dismissing the petition without prejudice, the petition should be returned to the 

Magistrate Judge for review of the exhausted claims. The Magistrate Judge then ordered 

the respondents to file a supplemental response to the petition. The time for them to do 

so was extended to September 17, 2012. 

On March 29, 2012—around the same time that he filed his response to the 

Magistrate Judge’s original R&R, but before the District Court had issued its order 

referring the matter back to the Magistrate Judge—Paladino filed a Motion for 

Production of Documents. In that motion, he requested that the District Court order the 

respondents to produce various tax forms and a warehouse order for the period 2006 

through 2012. Paladino also filed a motion to compel the production of those documents 
3

on May 11, 2012. He contends that neither the District Court nor the respondents have 

acted upon either his original document request or his subsequent motion to compel. He 

now requests that we issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court to take action.

II.

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

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). It “has traditionally 

been available to a court of appeals only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise 

of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to 

do so.’” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 n.3 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Such 

action is appropriate only where (1) the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain 

the relief sought; (2) the right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) 

we are satisfied in the exercise of our discretion that mandamus is appropriate under the 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.

We have explained that the manner in which a District Court disposes of the cases 

on its docket and conducts discovery is committed to its sound discretion. 

, 418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005).

In re Fine 

Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982). However, there are instances 

where “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” which may 

warrant mandamus relief. Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. So far it appears that the Magistrate 

Judge and the District Court have been diligently handling Paladino’s habeas petition. 

We do not find that the short delay so far in resolving Paladino’s discovery motion rises 
4

to the level of a denial of due process warranting the drastic remedy of mandamus. See

id.

Paladino also suggests that the District Court has a simple duty to authorize his 

discovery. Contrary to his assertions concerning the broad scope of discovery under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, though, “[a] habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil 

litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” 

(addressing five-month delay).

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 

2254 Cases provides that a judge may, upon a showing of good cause, permit discovery. 

Under Rule 6(b), the “party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request.” 

Ultimately, “[t]he burden rests upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the sought-after 

information is pertinent and that there is good cause for its production.” Williams v. 

Beard

III.

, 637 F.3d 195, 209 (3d Cir. 2011). Although we observe that it is not readily 

apparent how Paladino construes the requested documents as being pertinent to his 

habeas petition, we will leave it to the District Court to determine in the first instance 

whether Paladino has satisfied the standard for obtaining discovery under Rule 6(b). We 

are fully confident it will do so without undue delay. 

In sum, because the extraordinary circumstances justifying a writ of mandamus are 

absent, we will deny the petition.