Court Opinion

ID: 9916327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 19:01:14.150726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:59.688875
License: Public Domain

DLD-047                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-3138
                                       ___________

                              IN RE: JOHN LEE GORE,
                                                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. 3:23-cv-20776)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 December 20, 2023

                Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: January 9, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       John Lee Gore, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the

District Court to rule on his application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following

reasons, we will deny the petition.

       Gore filed the application in the District Court on September 28, 2023. See Gore

v. Harbor Freight Tools, et al., D.C. Civ. No. 3:23-cv-20776. He sought to file a

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
complaint alleging that he was injured by a defective product. Gore filed this mandamus

petition just over two months later, asserting that the District Court’s delay in ruling on

the application constitutes a violation of due process.

       A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary

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

2005). A petitioner seeking the writ “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). Generally, a court’s management of

its docket is discretionary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d

Cir. 1982), and there is no “clear and indisputable” right to have a District Court handle a

case in a particular manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36

(1980) (per curiam). That said, a writ of mandamus may issue where a District Court’s

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

       We conclude that the delay presented here has not yet amounted to a failure to

exercise jurisdiction. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling in due

course. Accordingly, we will deny Gore’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his

filing another mandamus petition if the District Court does not act in a reasonable time.

                                              2