Michael West v. ( 2015 )

BLD-089 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 14-4342
____________
IN RE: MICHAEL WEST,
Petitioner
__________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from
the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 13-cv-05339)
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
January 23, 2015
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 29, 2015)
____________
OPINION*
____________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Michael West, a federal prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of
mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order directing the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey to enter a default judgment against the
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Government and to vacate his conviction. For the following reasons, we will deny the
petition.
West filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in August
2013. The motion sat on the docket for nearly a year without any activity. In July 2014,
West filed an amended § 2255 motion, as well as a motion to compel the Government to
file a response. The District Court entered an order pursuant to Mason v. Myers, 208
F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), and United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999),
advising West to elect either to have the motion ruled on as filed or withdraw it and file
an all-inclusive motion within the one-year limitations period. West failed to respond to
the Miller/Mason order; however, in August 2014, he filed a motion for default judgment
against the Government. On November 3, 2014, absent any response to or ruling on his
§ 2255 or default judgment motion, West filed the instant mandamus petition. He argues
that the Government’s failure to respond should be construed as its agreement with the
merits of the § 2255 motion and, therefore, the District Court should be directed to vacate
his sentence.
We will deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Our jurisdiction derives from 28
U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
aid of (our) . . . jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of
mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary situations. See
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To justify the use of this
extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show both a clear and indisputable right to the
writ and that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired. See Haines v.
2
Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). West cannot make the requisite
showing.
On November 13, 2014, the District Court directed the Government to respond to
the § 2255 motion within 45 days. The next day, West filed a second motion for default
judgment, which the District Court dismissed as moot. On December 22, 2014, the
District Court entered an order, per the Government’s letter-request,1 extending the time
for the Government to respond to the § 2255 motion until February 23, 2015. An
appellate court 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), but the manner in which a court controls its docket is discretionary, In re Fine
Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). In this case, while there
was an initial delay in the resolution of the motion which may be attributable to the
District Court, since July 2014, when West filed his latest amended § 2255 motion, there
has been no extraordinary delay. Although the District Court waited three months to
direct the Government to respond to the amended motion, this delay appears to be the
result of West’s failure to respond to the Mason/Miller order.2 West takes issue with the
Government’s delay in filing its response; however, it was only first directed to respond
1
The Government’s letter-request is not listed on the docket.
2
In its order directing the Government to respond, the District Court stated that the filing
of the amended petition (on the same day as the Miller/Mason order) would be construed
as evidence that West elected to stand on his complaint.
3
in November, and its request for an extension of time was not unreasonable.3 We are
confident that once the Government responds, the District Court will rule on the § 2255
motion without unnecessary delay. Thus, we conclude there is no basis here for granting
extraordinary relief.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
3
Even if the Government had failed to respond to the § 2255 motion, it does not follow
that West is entitled to a default judgment. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th
Cir. 1990) (collecting cases).
4