Jason Kokinda v. , 538 F. App'x 141 ( 2013 )

BLD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3617
___________
IN RE: JASON KOKINDA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Civil No. 5:13-cv-02202)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 18, 2013
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 30, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se litigant Jason Kokinda asks us for a writ of mandamus directing the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to expedite proceedings on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and bail motion. Since filing his mandamus petition, he has
moved for expedited and emergency consideration of his mandamus petition and motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, we will deny the mandamus
petition, as well as his motions for expedited and emergency consideration.
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. 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(3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997).
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 and indisputable” right to
have a district court handle a case in a certain manner, see Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon,
Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (per curiam). However, mandamus may be warranted when
a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102
F.3d at 79.
The delay complained of by Kokinda is not tantamount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction. Kokinda filed his habeas petition in April 2013, and then filed various
amendments, revisions and supplemental pleadings in May, June, and July 2013. In July
2013, he filed a petition for release on bail pending the District Court’s adjudication of
his habeas petition. Upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s motion, the Magistrate
Judge to whom the case had been transferred extended the Commonwealth’s time to file a
response to November 5, 2013. In August 2013, Kokinda filed yet another motion to
amend his habeas petition, as well as a motion to supplement his petition for release on
bail.
2
Because Kokinda sought mandamus relief less than five months after he filed his
habeas petition, and because even less time had passed since he filed a motion for release
on bail, the delay “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. (denying
a mandamus petition where the district court had not ruled on petitioner’s motion in four
months). We are fully confident that the District Court will adjudicate Kokinda’s habeas
and bail petitions without undue delay.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. His motions for
expedited and emergency consideration are denied.
3