Anthony Jones v. ( 2019 )

BLD-083 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3738
___________
IN RE: ANTHONY JONES,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 4:16-cv-01741)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 24, 2019
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 5, 2019)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Anthony Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule on his pending petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, 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.
In August 2016, Jones filed a § 2254 petition, challenging the computation of his
sentence for two convictions by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and
alleging that his parole was improperly revoked based on a criminal charge for which he
was found not guilty. The Commonwealth filed a response in November 2016, and Jones
replied shortly thereafter. Almost two years later, in August 2018, Jones requested a
copy of the docket report, which the District Court provided. Then, on December 7,
2018, Jones filed in the District Court a motion for an evidentiary hearing and a letter
asserting that he is being held illegally. Jones filed his mandamus petition on December
19, 2018. Meanwhile on January 9, 2019, the District Court notified the parties that the
case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson.
Issuance of a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in extraordinary
circumstances only. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Its main purpose
is “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.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk
Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). To justify our use of this remedy, a petitioner must
demonstrate that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Although we may issue a writ of mandamus on
the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), the manner in which a court controls its docket is
discretionary. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).
Given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no clear and
2
indisputable right to have the District Court handle a case on its docket in a certain
manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, 49 U.S. 33, 36 (1980).
Jones’ § 2254 petition has been ripe for determination since November 2016—over
two years’ time. That delay is not insignificant and raises some concern. See Madden,
102 F.3d at 79. Notably, however, after Jones filed the mandamus petition, the matter
was referred to Magistrate Judge Carlson, suggesting that an adjudication of Jones’
§ 2254 petition is forthcoming. Indeed, we are confident that the District Court will rule
on Jones’ § 2254 petition in a timely fashion. Therefore, we will deny the mandamus
petition.
3