Peter C. Ibe v.

DLD-061 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-4231
___________
IN RE: PETER C. IBE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 12-cv-00941)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 6, 2012
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 11, 2012)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM.
Peter C. Ibe, an alien presently in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security, has filed an “emergency” petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651, asking this Court to order the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania to rule forthwith on Ibe’s pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Ibe contends that the District Court has unduly delayed its adjudication of the habeas
petition. We will deny the mandamus petition.
Mandamus relief is available in extraordinary circumstances only. See In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must show
that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s
right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under
the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010)
(per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). “Mandamus petitions provide an avenue for
dealing with the situation (which fortunately occurs infrequently) where cases have been
unduly delayed in the district court.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 78 (3d Cir. 1996).
The District Court’s docket reflects that on March 18, 2012, Ibe filed a habeas
corpus petition challenging the lawfulness of his detention pending removal proceedings.
The District Court issued a show cause order, and respondents, after being granted
additional time, answered the petition on June 27, 2012. Ibe filed a reply on July 13,
2012, and he also filed a separate “Motion for U-Visa Certification.” The District Court
issued an order seeking a report on the status of Ibe’s removal proceedings and his
location. The District Court then ordered a response to the Motion for U-Visa
Certification. Respondents filed their response on September 26, 2012, and Ibe filed a
reply on October 3, 2012. He filed his mandamus petition in this Court less than six
weeks later, on November 16, 2012.
Ibe has not shown undue delay in the proceedings before the District Court. The
District Court promptly ordered and received responses to the habeas petition and Motion
for U-Visa Certification, and there is no indication that its delay in adjudicating those
2
pleadings “is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79;
cf. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir. 1990) (granting writ of mandamus
due to fourteen-month delay in deciding habeas petition “for no reason other than docket
congestion”). We are confident that the District Court will issue a decision without any
needless delay of this matter, cognizant, as the District Court undoubtedly is, that Ibe is
challenging the lawfulness of his ongoing immigration detention.
Ibe also asks this Court to issue an order staying his removal proceedings pending
the adjudication of his habeas petition. Ibe notes that a merits hearing before an
Immigration Judge is scheduled for December 11, 2012, and he maintains that his
“unlawful detention has prevented and continues to prevent him from obtaining evidence
in support of his applications for relief.” Petition at 5. As explained, we have no cause to
issue a writ of mandamus in connection with Ibe’s habeas proceeding, and it follows that
there is no ground to issue an order staying or enjoining Ibe’s removal proceedings. Ibe
can raise with the Immigration Judge his concern that detention has prevented him from
adequately preparing applications for relief from removal.
For these reasons, we will deny the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus
and motion to stay removal proceedings.1
1
Ibe’s “Ex Parte Motion for U-Visa Certification,” wherein he seeks the same relief
from this Court as he seeks in his pending “Motion for U-Visa Certification,” is
denied without prejudice to Ibe’s pursuit of relief before the District Court.
3