2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-11-2014

In Re: Dwight Bell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-4460

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 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: Dwight Bell" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1246.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/1246
BLD-053 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4460

___________

IN RE: DWIGHT DAVID BELL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-14-cv-04047)

____________________________________

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

December 4, 2014

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 11, 2014)

_________________

OPINION*

_________________

PER CURIAM

Dwight D. Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States 

District Court for the District of New Jersey to act on his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. We will deny the petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

In April 2014, Bell filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania. In June 2014, his case was transferred to the District of New Jersey 

because he was convicted and sentenced in New Jersey. Bell then moved the District 

Court to order the respondent to answer. The District Court took no action on Bell’s 

petition or motion. Accordingly, on November 14, 2014, Bell filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus to order the District Court to act on his habeas corpus petition.

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

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

is only appropriate when (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) the 

issuing court is satisfied in the exercise of its discretion that mandamus is appropriate 

under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79. When a district court’s “undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” mandamus may be appropriate. Madden 

v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 

24.1(c) (1997).

Bell’s case was before the District Court for approximately five months before he 

filed his mandamus petition. The docket does not reveal any action by the District Court 

during or after this time. “Although this delay is of concern, it does not yet rise to the 

level of a denial of due process.” Id. (holding that mandamus was not warranted in 

habeas case with a five-month delay). Accordingly, we will deny Bell’s petition for a 
3

writ of mandamus. This denial is without prejudice to Bell filing a new mandamus 

petition if it becomes warranted.