In Re: Yaw Amponsah

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-19-2009
In Re: Yaw Amponsah
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4631
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Yaw Amponsah " (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1719.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1719
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-22 (December 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4631
___________
IN RE: YAW AMPONSAH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 08-00114)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 31, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 19, 2009)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Yaw Amponsah, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order directing the U.S.
District Court for District of New Jersey to rule on his motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the
petition.
Amponsah filed a motion under § 2255 on January 9, 2008, in the District
of New Jersey. On July 3, 2008, counsel for the government entered an appearance and
filed an answer. On July 10, 2008, Amponsah filed a mandamus petition, which we
denied. On November 17, 2008, Amponsah filed this mandamus petition.
Amponsah asserts that he has experienced an “extraordinary delay” in the
adjudication of his motion. The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most
“extraordinary situations.” DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). In order
to ensure that mandamus is sparingly granted, a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus
must demonstrate that no other adequate means are available to obtain the desired relief
and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp.
v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346
U.S. 379, 384 (1953) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582 (1899))).
As we have previously held, district courts are given discretion over
management of their dockets. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d
Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a litigant’s
right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp., 449 U.S. at 35-36. Nonetheless,
mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay is tantamount to a failure to
exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). This case does
not meet that standard. Amponsah’s motion was filed on January 9, 2008. The
government filed an answer on July 3, 2008. The matter has been ripe for consideration
for five months. We have previously held that a delay of four months does not warrant
2
mandamus relief. Id. A delay of one month more does not amount to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction.
Next, Amponsah asserts that the length of his incarceration exceeds the
term that the District Court would have imposed absent allegedly ineffective assistance by
his attorney. However, Amponsah’s belief that he has been prejudiced by his attorney’s
allegedly ineffective assistance does not establish his entitlement to mandamus relief.
Finally, Amponsah contends that, once a trial judge has issued a writ of
habeas corpus, she has “ministerial duty” to conduct a hearing, and that such a hearing
may be compelled via mandamus proceedings. As the District Court has not issued a writ
of habeas corpus in this case, Amponsah’s argument is inapposite.
Accordingly, we will deny Amponsah’s mandamus petition.
3