DLD

- 284 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

___________ No. 19

- 3085

___________ IN RE: GILBERT M. MARTINEZ , 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. Civ. No s . 5

- 19

- cv - 03708 and 5

- 19

- cv - 04087 )

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

September 19, 2019 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 11, 2019 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Gilbert Martinez has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to rule on his applicat ions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and his motions for preliminary injunctive relief. He also requests that we direct the District Judge to recuse himself. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the fu ll Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

On August 16, 2019, Martine z filed an application to proceed IFP in the District Court. He sought to file a 50

- page complaint alleging that he is the victim of a conspiracy among the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, federal judges, and state officials to deprive him of various rights and benefits. He also filed motions for preliminary injunctive relief and a motion to recuse the District Judge. On September 6, 2019, Martinez filed another application to proceed IFP in the District Court, which was docketed separ ately. Martinez sought to file a related complaint alleging that federal and state officials in Berks County conspired to deprive him of a tax exemption and welfare benefits. On September 10, 2019, Martinez filed his mandamus petition. He asks us to dire ct the District Court to rule on his pending applications to proceed IFP and motions for preliminary injunctive relief. He also requests that we direct the District Judge to recuse himself. On September 17, 2019, the District Court granted the applicatio ns to proceed IFP. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate me ans exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotatio n marks an d citation omitted). Generally, a court’s management of its docket is discretionary, In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and3

indisputable” right to have a d istrict c ourt handle a case in a certain man ner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), that situation is not present here. In light of the District Court’s ruling on the IFP applications, the mandamus petition is moot with respect to that issue. As for the outstanding motions for injunctive relief, we note that they were filed less than a month before Martinez filed his mandamus petition. Cf. Madden , 102 F.3d at 79 (district court’s delay of almost seven months did not warrant mandamus relief); see also Hassine v. Zimmerman , 160 F.3d 941, 954 n.12 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that district court dela y must be “extraordinary” to warrant mandamus relief). Thus, we cannot say that there has been any undue delay by the District Court, let alone a delay that is “tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.”
Madden , 102 F.3d at 79. We remain confide nt that the District Court will rule on the outstanding motions in a timely manner. Because Martinez has failed to raise any meritorious grounds for recusal of the District Judge, mandamus relief is not warranted on that issue. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (recusal appropriate where reasonable person would question judge’s impartiality ); Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (a dverse legal rulings are almost always insufficient to warrant recusal). Accordingly , at this time, t he extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not warranted , and we will deny the mandamus petition.